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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful traits beyond these: canonicality ('reads current server state and does not manufacture company facts'), idempotency ('safe to repeat'), and a no-confirmation boundary. The confirmation sentence is padded with unrelated enumerated actions, diluting the value, but idempotency is genuine added 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the labeled boilerplate blocks (Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) add bulk, and the confirmation sentence lists unrelated operations ('reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record, link preparation, plan refresh') that do not earn their place in a read tool's description.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and a nested object, the definition omits parameter meaning and any real usage routing, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0% and there are three parameters (query, includeGlobal, _corply_context) including a nested object, yet the description explains none of them. It never clarifies what includeGlobal toggles or what the context object is for. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap as required when coverage is low.

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: 'Search the connected company's context memory + Corply reference KB for relevant facts.' This clearly reads as a retrieval/search operation, distinguishing it in spirit from the write-oriented sibling 'remember'. However, it never names or contrasts itself with a sibling (e.g., remember, get_company_briefing), leaving differentiation to inference.

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 only guidance is 'Prerequisite: authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above,' which is circular and references context not present in the definition. There is no statement of when to reach for recall versus 'remember' or other search/retrieval siblings, and no exclusions.

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