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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the required scope (company:read) and clarifying that the caller cannot target another entity.

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 filler, with the core behavior front-loaded before the auth and scoping caveats.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, yet it only says 'the company' without indicating the fields or shape returned. Adequate to call it, incomplete for interpreting the result.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The sentence 'takes no company identifier from the caller' usefully explains why the schema is empty rather than leaving the agent to wonder if a parameter was omitted.

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 ('Return the authenticated merchant's own company') and scopes it to the caller's own entity rather than an arbitrary one. This implicitly separates it from get_business, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer that distinction.

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 prerequisite 'Requires company:read' is stated and the phrase 'takes no company identifier from the caller' hints at the contrast with an identifier-based sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_business guidance or exclusion.

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