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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value with the consent requirement and module-authority precondition, plus explicit scope exclusions. However, the phrase "with exact expectedRevision" describes concurrency behavior that cannot exist on a tool with an empty schema, which would mislead an agent about how the call behaves.

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 dense sentences with the read target and its fields front-loaded, followed by preconditions and exclusions. The trailing exclusion list ("private metadata, legal issuer, credential or profile publication") is telegraphic but still compact and earns its place as scope bounding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (name, email, phone, website, address) and states the access prerequisites. The only completeness defect is the stray expectedRevision reference, which conflicts with the declared empty input schema and leaves the actual invocation contract slightly ambiguous.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the description invents a parameter-like concept ("exact expectedRevision") that the input schema does not contain, which risks an agent attempting to supply a revision value that has nowhere to go. That inaccuracy offsets the otherwise clean zero-parameter surface.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read the active tenant's company name...") and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what this tool retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from siblings by excluding tenant override, private metadata, legal issuer and credentials, though it never names an alternative tool for those needs.

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 context is only implied through prerequisites: "Requires separate company:read consent and current registered module authority." These are valuable preconditions but not when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no sibling such as get_profile or get_business_model is named as the alternative for out-of-scope data.

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