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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioural detail — the operation is scoped by session or organization key — but says nothing about what the result contains or how many companies are typically returned.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is a semicolon splice that front-loads a definition rather than the tool's purpose. Size is fine; information ordering is poor.

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 and no parameters mean the description is the only place to explain what the agent gets back — presumably the caller's linked companies — and it omits that entirely. For an account-scoped listing tool, the auth-scope hint helps but the core contract is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The auth note about session vs. organization key is the only argument-like behaviour and is mentioned, if vaguely.

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 never states the action ('list') — it defines what a company is ('the account organizations with EditalMD') and how to authenticate. The reader must infer the verb entirely from the tool name. It also does nothing to distinguish this from neighbours like search_companies, select_company, or add_company.

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?

'use the session or the organization key' is authentication mechanics, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this instead of search_companies or company_documents, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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