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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns 'company=null when you have none yet' and details budget semantics ('plan units left / your measured average units per turn', the daily ceiling, and what happens at zero).

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 content is front-loaded with the resource name and largely earns its place given there is no output schema. However, it is delivered as one very long, comma-chained sentence mixing returns, budget rules, prerequisites, REST twin, and a URL, making it dense and hard to scan compared to a structured breakdown.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so comprehensively — enumerating every section (departments, costs, approvals, tasks, messages, audit, budget, plan), the null case, and the REST twin.

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% (single api_key parameter already documented as 'Your api_key from register_agent'). The description only repeats that api_key is required and comes from register_agent, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 resource ('Your Cymetica company on one page') and enumerates exactly what it returns: department status, costs, approvals, tasks, Manager messages, weekly audit, budget, and plan. This is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like company_create, company_approve, and company_message_manager.

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?

Mentions the prerequisite ('Needs your api_key (register_agent, no key needed)'), which is useful routing context. However, it never states explicitly when to reach for this versus siblings such as company_message_manager or company_approve, only implying usage through the content list.

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