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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses numerous behavioral traits: documents stay pending until admin acceptance, EIN format and name availability are only screening, the founder must never pay or sign, checkoutUrl is for personal payment authorization, and the operation is idempotent. It also states prerequisites and the confirmation boundary, providing rich operational context.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is heavily bloated with procedural instructions, cross-tool references, and policy statements. It mixes multiple concerns and is much longer than needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The description is thorough about workflow, prerequisites, idempotency, and confirmation boundaries, which is useful for a complex import-resumption tool. However, it omits any parameter semantics and does not describe the return shape despite there being no output schema, leaving a gap for safe invocation.

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%, and the description never explains the required companyId or the nested _corply_context object. It does not compensate for the absent parameter documentation at all, leaving an agent to infer both input meanings solely from the schema names.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Resume an existing company import,' and specifies the scope as shared checklist, documents, review decisions, and next actions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_company_import_readings or read_company_import_documents, but the core purpose is 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?

It gives strong procedural context: resume an existing import, ask one multiple-choice question at a time, never assume documents or completion, and continue through the shared checklist. It states prerequisites and confirmation boundaries. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or clearly state when not to use this one.

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