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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral details: name is required, website must include the protocol, and tags are created on the fly if missing. However, it does not mention return values, duplicate handling, or required permissions, so coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional constraints are concise and relevant.

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 create operation with no output schema location, the description plus schema covers the required name, the website format, and tag behavior. Notes and industry are self-explanatory enough, but a note about the response payload or duplicate-name behavior would improve completeness.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaningful context for tags' auto-creation behavior and reiterates name/website semantics, but it does not clarify notes or industry beyond their property names. This is a minimum-viable pass.

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 'Create a new company,' clearly specifying the action and resource. This straightforwardly distinguishes companies_create from sibling tools like companies_update, companies_get, companies_list, and companies_delete.

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 makes it obvious that this tool is for creating a new company, which is the primary usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as companies_update for modifying existing companies, but the 'create' framing provides clear enough context for tool selection.

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