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

With annotations covering read-only safety (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds valuable context beyond structured data: it explains that this tool reveals the connection's reach and the current active company, and that all other tools operate within that one company. It doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return contents; the second clarifies the tool's role relative to other tools.

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?

Given zero parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that no pagination occurs or that output format is a list, but for a simple discovery tool it provides everything needed to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds meaning by clarifying what each listed item contains (company name implicitly, person's role, current status), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource ('List the companies this connection reaches') and adds scope detail about what is returned (person's role, current company). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming switch_company and contrasting behavior.

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?

It provides a strong implicit context: the tool is for seeing available companies and the current active one, and explicitly states the relationship to other tools ('Every other tool answers about that one company; switch_company moves it'). It doesn't state when not to use it, but the alternative is named.

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