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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds the exact sort order, the inclusion of unmarked SERP-discovered companies, and the 100-result cap. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is four short sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: scope, sort order, filtering mechanism, and result cap. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only list operation with a single filter, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is listed, the ordering, the filtering option, and the maximum result count. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return shape, but this is a minor gap for a list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is low at 25%, and the description partially compensates by explaining the `importance` buckets and the result cap. However, it does not add semantics for `projectId` or `context`, relying partly on the schema and self-evidence. The added value is real but incomplete.

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 the verb ('List'), the resource ('companies for a project'), and distinguishes between marked competitors and SERP-discovered unmarked companies. The sorting detail also differentiates it from generic list tools like list_organizations and from get_competitor_detail.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: listing a project's competitors, including unmarked ones. It also gives a concrete conditional usage hint ('Pass `importance` to filter to one bucket'), though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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