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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping behavior (results are narrowed to a single company and a single record type), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true density.

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 annotations cover safety, which lowers the bar. Still, for a domain-specific concept an agent may not recognize, the definition provides no glossary or disambiguation against the many schema_* siblings, leaving a real interpretive gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema's own descriptions are thin generic type wrappers ('UUID value wrapper', 'Lowercase kebab-case code identifier'), and the description only loosely maps its two phrases to companyId and schemaKey rather than naming or constraining them.

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 (List) and resource (presentation overrides) plus its two scoping dimensions: one company and one record type. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent schema_* list siblings (e.g. schema_get_list_field_definitions, schema_get_list_saved_views), and 'presentation overrides' is left as unexplained domain jargon.

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 mention of alternatives. An agent cannot infer from the description whether this is the right tool for inspecting override configuration versus the other schema list tools.

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