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 'configured for the company' scoping, which clarifies that it returns company-level settings. However, it does not disclose whether the company_id parameter is required or what happens if omitted, and there is no mention of pagination or ordering. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and the company scoping is included efficiently.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify whether company_id is required, what the response shape looks like, or whether the list is paginated. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap but still leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'configured for the company', which implies the company_id parameter's purpose, but it does not explain whether company_id is required, optional, or how it filters results. The parameter is a simple number with no schema description, so the description adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List rejection reasons configured for the company' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (rejection reasons), and the company scoping is explicit. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools by the specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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: call this when you need the company's configured rejection reasons. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of a list operation is clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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