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

Annotations establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds crucial behavioral context: the entry with isActive true is the target of all other formation tools. That relationship is not captured by annotations or schema and materially affects how an agent should use the result.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value routing and active-company context. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or interpretation.

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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and 100% parameter description coverage, the description supplies the remaining critical context about active-company semantics and sibling-tool routing. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are optional analytics-only fields. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the necessary semantics, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: returns every company the authenticated customer owns. It clearly distinguishes this inventory operation from sibling tools like switch_active_company and start_new_company.

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 names three triggering situations: the user asks which companies they have, wants to switch context, or is about to start a new formation. It also routes the agent to switch_active_company for changing the active company and start_new_company for creating a new one.

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