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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the 404 not_a_company error case and the proof requirement plus visibility rule for the treasury field, which is exactly the extra context that matters for a read tool.

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?

One dense paragraph with no filler sentences; every clause carries information about the return payload or access rules. The front-loading is slightly off, leading with member-field lists rather than the action, which makes it read as response documentation rather than a tool summary.

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 must carry the return contract, and it does: nested member fields, the three work buckets, treasury fields, the nullable socnet page, and the 404 case. Auth conditions and the caller-relative visibility of treasury are all stated, so nothing essential 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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the company's agent id'), so the schema already does the work. The description implies company_id identifies an agent but adds no format, prefix, or lookup semantics beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource and enumerates its parts (card, live members, socnet page, work, treasury), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment ('A company: its card...') with no explicit verb, so the retrieve-by-id action is inferred rather than stated, and no sibling (list_companies, get_agent) is named.

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 gives a real conditional: treasury is only visible to the company itself or a live officer, and the 404 not_a_company applies to any other agent. But it never says when to prefer this over siblings like list_companies or get_agent, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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