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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "that you can act on" adds a genuine behavioral detail about permission-based filtering, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering, or result size for a list operation.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing qualifier "that you can act on" is slightly vague and could be tightened.

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 zero-parameter list tool with safety annotations, the description is adequate but thin: with no output schema, the agent gets no indication of what each company entry contains or whether results are paginated. It covers the essentials without filling the remaining gaps.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies. No parameter detail is expected or missing.

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 (list) and resource (companies) with a workspace scope, which cleanly separates it from siblings like companies_get, companies_create, companies_archive, and companies_update. It is clear what the tool does, though it stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it contrasts with.

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?

"that you can act on" implies the listing is scoped to permissioned companies, giving an implicit sense of when the results are appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus companies_get or companies_archive, and no stated prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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