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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: 'Does not delete,' 'Restoring does not auto-unfreeze agents,' and the permission requirement for company managers. The sensitive-tier approval flow is additional behavioral detail beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place — triggers, non-deletion, freeze behavior, non-autonomy, and permission tiers are all distinct facts. The sensitive-tier paragraph adds operational context, though some redundancy with the schema slightly detracts.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, side effects (no deletion, agents remain frozen), authorization requirements, and operational constraints. This is highly complete for a destructive state-change tool.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the lifecycle enum meaning. The description mainly repeats the schema's wording ('archived' to archive, 'active' to unarchive/restore) without adding new parameter-level insight, so baseline 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 clear verb and resource: 'Archive or unarchive (restore) a company'. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by calling itself the 'MCP/chat door for company lifecycle' and noting it does not delete, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Use when get_my_companies shows lifecycle=archived and the operator wants it active again, or when they want to archive a live district.' It also states exclusions: 'Not autonomous' and 'scheduled agents cannot archive,' which tells the agent when not to invoke it.

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