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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: auto-seeding with founder common stock, canonicality (reads current server state), idempotency, and no confirmation needed. These disclosures go beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 opening sentence is efficient and informative, but the rest of the description is padded with generic boilerplate. The prerequisite sentence is broken and references nonexistent content, and the confirmation-boundary sentence lists many unrelated categories, adding noise rather than value.

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 read-only getter, the description covers the main return contents well, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it leaves parameter semantics ambiguous, references nonexistent prerequisites, and does not clarify how companyId or _corply_context should be supplied. This is adequate but not complete.

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 50%, with companyId lacking any schema description, so the description needs to compensate. It only vaguely implies companyId identifies the company via "the company's live cap table." It does not explain the parameter's format, optionality, or relationship to _corply_context, and it ignores the context object entirely.

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: "Return the company's live cap table," then enumerates the exact fields returned (holder, security type, shares, price paid, computed ownership %, total shares issued). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like import_cap_table and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need the current cap table, and it notes a prerequisite of authenticated active organization access. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The phrase "plus every prerequisite stated above" is circular because no concrete prerequisites are actually listed above it.

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