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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context—results are newest first and signals affect lead scoring—but does not disclose response format or pagination. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not exceptionally transparent.

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 deliver the core function, the ordering, the business significance, and a pointer for finding the required parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no filler.

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 simple read-only list with one required parameter, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, in what order, why the signals matter, and how to obtain the company ID. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap because the signal types are enumerated in the first sentence.

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 0%, so the description is the only narrative source for parameters. It compensates for the required companyId by explaining how to find company IDs via other tools. The optional limit parameter is not described, though its default/min/max are present in the schema and its meaning is fairly inferable.

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 ('List'), a resource ('a company's signals'), and enumerates signal types (funding events, headcount growth/decline, follower spikes) plus the ordering ('newest first'). It implicitly distinguishes this from lead-level signal tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 this tool is relevant: company signals boost the score of every lead at the company. It also gives concrete prerequisite guidance by pointing to campaignstack_get_company or campaignstack_list_companies for finding company IDs, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling list tools.

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