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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the removal is non-cascading (organization and PDFs stay) and reversible (re-adding the CNPJ restores it), which is exactly the blast-radius detail an agent needs before a destructive call. No contradiction with the idempotent hint.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place by conveying scope, permission, and reversibility. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, non-cascading scope, and the auth requirement. What remains unstated (return shape, whether confirmation is required) is minor given the full annotation coverage.

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% for the single cnpj parameter, including the 14-digit check-digit format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the CNPJ is the re-add identity key without adding syntax or validation detail, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Removes the company from the list') and scopes it against the org and PDFs, which implicitly separates it from sibling remove_company_document and remove_saved. It stops short of naming the alternative tools, so the agent must infer the distinction from the noun '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?

The parenthetical '(owner or admin)' supplies a real permission prerequisite, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over remove_company_document, remove_saved, or list_my_companies, so routing is only implied by the resource name.

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