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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds substantial context beyond that—records are founder assertions not verified facts, a refreshed get_company_briefing result is returned, charter/bylaws/cap table are requested when available, and it explicitly does not file, pay, sign, invite, or verify. Idempotency and retry semantics (same key returns original result; different inputs rejected) are also disclosed.

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 core content is front-loaded, but the block is bloated with generic-sounding boilerplate (Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) and a duplicate prerequisite statement ('Prerequisites: ...' followed later by 'Prerequisite: authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above'). Some sentences do not earn their 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 an eight-parameter, no-output-schema write tool, the definition covers prerequisites, idempotency, return behavior, and the confirmation boundary, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The unresolved gap is the identity/linking parameters (companyId, _corply_context) that the description never ties to the action.

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 carries the burden. It maps the semantic fields (name, jurisdiction, entity type, date, file number) to the assertedName/jurisdiction/entityType/formationDate/fileNumber parameters and highlights idempotencyKey's role, but companyId and the nested _corply_context object are never explained, leaving two of eight parameters unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it attaches an already-existing company without creating a Corply formation, and enumerates what gets recorded (name, jurisdiction, entity type, date, file number). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling import_company by naming the alternate workflow, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 first sentence names the alternative (import_company) and the condition that selects it (document-by-document import and missing-service workflow). It also lists prerequisites (active company-manager access, connected company, stable idempotencyKey), leaving little to inference.

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