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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: what is returned (capabilities, Account commandVersion) and an access constraint an agent would otherwise learn only by failing — that personal tools cannot reach Company posts.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the routing instruction 'Start here for Agency work', so the most decision-relevant line comes first. Slight cost: 'Account commandVersion' is capitalized oddly and is dense jargon that an agent may not parse without context.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the whole informational load and does so: it says what is listed, what accompanies each entry, how to use the results, and who should not use it. Nothing essential to calling this discovery tool correctly is 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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The sentence about using exact returned IDs is about outputs consumed by siblings rather than a parameter, which is a mild bonus.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list accessible companies/workspaces, plus what each entry carries (current capabilities and Account commandVersion). It also positions itself as the entry point ('Start here for Agency work') and implicitly contrasts with the personal-side tools, though it never names a specific sibling like account_context.

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 clearly directed: 'Start here for Agency work', use exact returned IDs downstream, and corporate employees should use personal tools for their own posts. It gives both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use signal, but the alternative (account_context) is referred to only generically as 'personal tools' rather than by name.

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