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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the per-company scope and the signal_id prerequisite, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or output shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

The description is only two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and scope; the second immediately tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It states the action, the scope, and the source of the required signal_id, while the schema covers pagination and limits and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 description coverage is 100%: signal_id is described as 'Tracked-company id from signals.list', page as a pagination cursor, and limit as a maximum record count. The description only repeats the signal_id provenance and does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('companies recommended from one company you track'), and tells the agent where to obtain the required signal_id ('Get signal_id from signals.list'). This clearly distinguishes it from signals.list and signals.recommendations.get, whose sibling names suggest different operations.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to list companies recommended from one tracked company, and it points to signals.list as the source of signal_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient and not misleading.

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