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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the default exclusion of archived companies, the paginated return shape (page, total, next_offset), and the cost note ('Free').

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the search modes, then the archival rule, then the return shape. No filler; each sentence carries distinct operational information.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: how to search, what is excluded by default, and what comes back including pagination. It slightly under-delivers on how offset/limit relate to next_offset and on sort/lifecycle_stage semantics.

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 only 44%, with query, limit, offset, lifecycle_stage and include_archived undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for the two most ambiguous ones by defining query as name-or-domain matching and explaining include_archived's default, though limit, offset and lifecycle_stage remain unaddressed in both places.

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 (search/find) and resource (companies) and spells out the three search modes: name/domain, field/tag/custom-field filters, or a saved segment. An agent can distinguish it from crm_get_company or crm_save_company, but it never mentions the adjacent generic crm_search sibling, which risks confusion about which entry point to use.

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?

Usage is implied by enumerating the search modes and by the archived-record rule, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance against siblings such as crm_search, crm_find_duplicates, or crm_get_company. The include_archived note is the only conditional behavior stated.

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