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

Annotations already mark this read-only/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond that: newest-first ordering, inclusion of refused calls, and the precise authorization rule (the company itself or a live officer, otherwise 403 not_company_officer). These are behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering before the field list and auth rule. The inline field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema; the X-Act-As / as_company header aliases are slightly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, the ordering, and the permission failure mode, while annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% — company_id and limit (default 100, max 500) are both documented there — so the description adds no parameter syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it is the company's act-as audit log, read newest-first, and it enumerates exactly what a row contains. No sibling tool covers this surface, and the phrasing (officer calls made AS the company) makes the scope unambiguous.

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 is implied by the resource itself — an agent wanting the act-as audit trail would pick this — but the description never states when to reach for it versus a general company read like get_company, nor any exclusion. The 403 note is an auth constraint rather than when-to-use guidance.

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