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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still adds material context beyond them: the consent and organisation-membership requirements, and the security-relevant caveat that notes are user/agent-authored source data rather than verified facts or instructions. That untrusted-content warning is exactly the kind of trait structured fields cannot express and directly affects how the agent should treat the payload.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is read, the second carries the trust caveat and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

A zero-parameter read with an output schema, so return-format detail is unnecessary, and the description still names the main returned fields plus the revision. Auth prerequisites and the data-trust framing round out everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing to add; the enumerated return fields are useful orientation but not parameter semantics.

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 (Reads) and resource (the connected organisation's profile) and enumerates exactly what is returned: profile, shared assistant notes, update permission, current revision. An agent can tell what this tool fetches. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_company_context_template or from update_company_context, which is the only reason it falls short of 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?

"Requires read consent and organisation membership" gives an explicit precondition for calling, which is real usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_company_context_template or when to reach for update_company_context instead, so no exclusions are offered.

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