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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it is not a form, not an integration dump, gives one step at a time, and must be re-called after each step. It could still be clearer about what exactly the tool returns, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 dense but organized: purpose first, then workflow, exclusions, usage trigger, and routing. It is longer than minimal, but most sentences carry routing or sequencing value; a little redundancy exists between 'Use when...' and the routing line.

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 complex multi-step play with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, how to sequence it, sibling routing, and re-call behavior. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return payload, but the 'one next step at a time' phrasing and detailed workflow make the agent's job clear enough.

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%, with companyId fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Start a new company in conversation — one next step at a time.' It distinguishes itself from siblings via explicit routing: new company/first week after mint goes here, coding-agent briefs go to get_partner_cos_onboard, and setup completeness-only goes to get_setup_state.

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?

Usage is made explicit: 'Use when they want a new company or just minted one.' The routing section names exact alternatives and the conditions for choosing them, so an agent can decide correctly without guessing.

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