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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that companies are created automatically from lead company names and LinkedIn imports, including matching normalization rules (case, diacritics, legal suffixes). It also clarifies what the returned data includes, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The core listing behavior and key output fields are front-loaded, followed by creation context and a useful pointer to related operations. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with rich annotations and a fully documented parameter schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the important returned identifiers and fields, describes matching behavior for auto-created companies, and points to appropriate follow-up tools. It does not fully enumerate every return field, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not meaningfully add to parameter semantics beyond what the schema says (e.g., 'query' is already described as a text search across name, industry, and location in the schema itself), meeting the baseline but not surpassing it.

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: 'List companies (accounts) in the CRM.' It also specifies the distinguishing output fields (people_count, furthest pipeline stage) and explains how companies are auto-created, making it easy to tell this apart from similar list tools like list_companies or list_company_lists.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional search across name, industry, and location, and explicitly says the returned crm_company_id is for get_crm_company, update_crm_company, and merge_crm_companies. However, it does not contrast this tool with sibling list tools or state any exclusion conditions, so the when-to-use guidance remains mainly implicit.

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