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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses non-deletion, the side effect that restoring does not unfreeze agents, the non-autonomous execution model, and the permission/sensitive-tier behavior. These go far beyond what the schema exposes.

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 first sentence is an excellent front-loaded summary, and the detail is valuable. However, the 'company managers run without a founder card' permission note appears twice, and the OAuth/connect-card note is somewhat tangential, which adds redundancy without new signal.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important contextual gaps: side effects, autonomy restrictions, permission tiers, and when to use it. It does not describe the return value, but the low complexity and complete parameter schema make that a minor omission.

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%, so the schema already fully explains both parameters. The description restates the lifecycle mapping ('archived' to archive, 'active' to unarchive) but does not add substantive new parameter-level meaning beyond the enum descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Archive or unarchive (restore) a company the operator can manage.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from deletion ('Does not delete') and ties to the archive_company / unarchive_company RPCs, so it is not easily confused with sibling update_company or other archive_* tools.

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 usage triggers: use when get_my_companies shows lifecycle=archived and the operator wants it active, or when archiving a live district. Also states when it is not appropriate (scheduled agents cannot archive) and who may run it, which fully guides tool selection.

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