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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it reads current server state, does not manufacture company facts, is safe to repeat, and requires no additional confirmation. These traits are not fully inferable from annotations alone.

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 first two sentences are crisp and front-loaded with purpose and tool selection. However, the trailing 'Prerequisite' and 'Confirmation boundary' sentences include boilerplate-like phrasing and an irrelevant list of confirmation categories, adding noise rather than earning 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 a read-only tool with no required parameters, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly: purpose, prerequisite, alternative, idempotency, and confirmation posture. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not detail the exact return shape, though 'organization and company identities' gives reasonable guidance.

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 100%, and the single optional _corply_context parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'compatibility read returning the caller's organization and company identities.' It also differentiates itself from get_company_briefing, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

It explicitly says to prefer get_company_briefing for company-specific work, giving a clear alternative and condition. It also states the prerequisite of authenticated active organization access, though the phrase 'plus every prerequisite stated above' is confusing since nothing precedes it.

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