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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: pricing ($47/mo), fail-closed behavior, approval requirement, the purpose of the companyId parameter, and explicit note that it does not hire. These are not present in annotations, adding rich context for agent decision-making.

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 description is long but well-structured with a clear purpose statement, side-effect details, routing, and a bracketed approval note. Each sentence carries information; redundancy is minimal. It could be tightened, but the structure aids comprehension.

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 tool with billing side effects, approval flows, and follow-up actions, the description covers all necessary context: pricing, payment failure handling, approval mechanics, and post-create next steps. It even explains the companyId usage. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial meaning, especially for companyId: 'Pass companyId of a company you already manage so that yes-card can land — it is not the company being created.' This goes beyond the schema's generic description and clarifies a non-obvious parameter purpose.

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 clearly states 'Create a new company in this operator's portfolio' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from update_company by explicitly noting 'Not update_company (that's an existing company)' and clarifies it does not hire, eliminating ambiguity among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'new company / add a business / another venture → create_company' and states 'Not update_company'. It also instructs when to use ('Use when the operator wants another business in FreedomOS from chat or MCP') and includes follow-up tool suggestions, leaving no inference needed.

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