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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — only 'visible' companies are returned — plus an equivalence note to the REST endpoint GET /api/v1/companies/recent, but says nothing about ordering direction guarantees, rate limits, or response shape. Modest value beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core fact, which is good, but the Hebrew sentence repeats the English one verbatim in meaning and the REST endpoint sentence is only marginally informative for an agent, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the key essentials: what rows come back (visible companies), their ordering, and pagination handled by the schema. Missing only explicit sibling routing, which is a minor gap.

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 both limit and offset fully documented (ranges and defaults), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no pagination syntax or meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list companies) plus the ordering criterion (by incorporation date) and a scope qualifier ('visible'), which clearly separates it from list_companies_by_city/type/year. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only implied: 'newest ... by incorporation date' suggests when an agent would pick this over the sibling list_* tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisite, or named alternative. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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