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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: it records assertions rather than verified facts, returns a refreshed get_company_briefing result, requests supporting documents, supports idempotent retries but rejects same-key-different-input reuse, and explicitly states the action does not file, pay, sign, invite, or verify. It also confirms the save is reversible and that no extra confirmation is needed.

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 contains substantial redundant and generic boilerplate, such as repeating the prerequisite sentence and adding generic idempotency and confirmation-boundary policy blocks. It is much longer than necessary and buries the core tool-specific behavior under repetitive guidance.

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 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool with minimal annotations, the description covers the action's purpose, prerequisites, return value, idempotency semantics, safety profile, and follow-up document requests. It is functionally complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of assertedName, jurisdiction, entityType, formationDate, fileNumber, companyId, and idempotencyKey, including idempotency-key reuse restrictions. The only parameter not clearly covered is _corply_context, though it has a schema description and the description references context_engineering.

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: 'Attach an already-existing company without creating a Corply formation.' It clearly states what data is recorded and that these are 'founder assertions—not verified facts,' distinguishing it from formation and verification-oriented tools.

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 explicit prerequisites: active company-manager access, explicit companyId when multiple companies exist, stable idempotencyKey, and authenticated organization access. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the purpose and prerequisites make the intended context clear.

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