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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine value beyond them by delimiting the return content (companyUsers with name and role, pending positions marked) and stating what is NOT returned (share counts, IDs, contact details). It omits any note on permissions or completeness of records, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose, then return shape, then exclusions, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values, which it does precisely (companyUsers, name and role fields, Pending marker, omitted fields). It also covers the single input and alternative tools, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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?

Only one parameter, already documented at 100% schema coverage (id: Company ID, as returned by list-companies). The description adds no additional semantics about the id beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Specific verb plus a precisely scoped resource: people on corporate secretary records holding acting or pending Director, Shareholder, Beneficial Owner, Controller or Agent positions. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like list-companies or list-customers.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get-corporate-subsidiaries for owned companies and get-company for the company record. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternatives statement.

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