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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needed to add context. It adds the scoping rule (own companies only), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite pageSize/pageToken being present.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence partially restates the first ('member of' vs 'user's own companies'), which is the only slack.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation and the annotations cover safety. Still, for a 6-field nested-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and a near-identical sibling, the description leaves pagination, the userId filter, and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 description carries the full burden. It names three filters (ids, statuses, withoutFormation) but omits filter.userId, pageSize and pageToken entirely, and gives no format or semantics beyond a restatement of field names, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 ('Lists the companies') plus the scope constraint that only the signed-in user's memberships are returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling `company_get_my_companies`, which on its name alone appears to serve nearly the same purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives, despite multiple adjacent list/get tools (`company_get_my_companies`, `company_get_company`, `company_get_list_company_members`). The 'Returns only the user's own companies' clause is a scope statement, not usage guidance.

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