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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable nuance: it's a soft-delete (implying reversibility) and explicitly notes the public career site goes offline. This goes beyond the annotation flags and clarifies the nature of the destructive action. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Soft-delete a company') and adds a relevant consequence. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately scannable.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a key side effect. It implies reversibility via 'soft-delete' but doesn't explicitly mention that restore is possible or what happens to associated data (jobs, candidates). Given the minimal complexity, this is largely sufficient, though a note on the permanent/restorable nature would make it more complete.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'id' with zero description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its meaning (the company's identifier) to be inferred from the tool name. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain what 'id' refers to or any constraints (e.g., must be an existing company).

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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('company'), and adds a concrete consequence ('its public career site goes offline'). This clearly distinguishes it from other delete tools targeting different resources, and the 'soft-delete' nuance differentiates it from a hard delete.

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 implies usage (delete a company) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It doesn't mention that a hard delete or permanent removal might be handled elsewhere, nor does it reference the restore_company sibling. The context is inferred from the name and 'soft-delete' but not explicitly guided.

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