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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding a concrete exclusion list — billing, authentication, credentials and platform configuration are never returned — which prevents an agent from calling it expecting those fields.

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 short sentences with no filler. The positive scope is front-loaded and the negative scope follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a retrieval tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key missing piece — what data is out of scope — though it could note whether results are company-wide or user/location-scoped.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter space the description needs to explain.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') plus an enumerated resource ('company preferences, headers, footers and categories'), which distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like get_company_configuration_schema and get_company_document_styles. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the content list.

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: the tool is for reading safe preference data. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or guidance on when to prefer get_company_configuration_schema, list_company_integrations or get_company_document_styles instead.

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