Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by stating what survives (people, deals, notes), that crm_get_company still reads the record with archived: true, and the $0.001 cost with no charge on failure. The only gap is that it doesn't say what happens if the company_id doesn't exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope of hiding, what is preserved, irreversibility and cost. Nothing is redundant and the effect is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A one-parameter mutation with no output schema; the description covers consequences, reversibility, read-back behavior, and billing. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the single company_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies a company is identified by identity or name ('even by name') but never describes the company_id argument itself; the single-parameter baseline keeps this at 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Hide a company') and immediately scopes the effect to concrete surfaces: crm_find_companies, crm_search, duplicates and exports. That makes it unmistakable against siblings such as crm_restore_company and crm_save_company.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says re-saving, even by name, will not reverse the archive, and names crm_restore_company as the tool that does. That is a direct when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing instruction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.