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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are permission-filtered ('limited to the companies you may view') and a warning that CRM field values are untrusted content. It omits return format/pagination, but the annotation baseline lowers the burden.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded. The security note is boilerplate but brief and non-redundant, so it earns its place without bloating the definition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys what is returned (linked companies plus which is primary) and the visibility constraint. Combined with the 50%-covered schema, this is nearly complete, with only the id parameter's meaning left implicit.

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 50% — workspaceId is fully documented in the schema, while id is not. The description implies the id is the person/contact but never states it, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Lists) and resource (companies a contact is linked to), and adds a distinguishing detail — which one is primary. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like set_contact_account or find_contact_duplicates, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: read this to see a contact's linked companies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., set_contact_account for modifying the link), so the agent must infer the context.

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