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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond annotations: archived companies remain readable, lifecycle is derived from companies.archived_at, and the response includes mission, vision, settings, and lifecycle. This is meaningful context an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the archive-readability caveat, and finally route to the mutation sibling. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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 simple read operation with full schema parameter coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what fields are returned, clarifies archived-company behavior, and points to the lifecycle tool, so the agent has everything needed to call correctly.

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% with both companyId and include_settings already described in the input schema. The description lists response fields but does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed company profile including mission, vision, settings, and lifecycle.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools by naming set_company_lifecycle for archiving and noting that archived companies remain readable through this tool.

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 description provides clear context for when this read tool is appropriate, including the caveat that archived companies are still readable and should not be treated as active. It explicitly directs the agent to set_company_lifecycle for archiving operations, though it does not exhaustively contrast with every sibling like get_my_companies.

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