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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing the auth scope 'company_context:write', the plan-based quota with a 429 that names the limit, and the non-obvious constraint that at least one of nine optional fields must be supplied. That last point is the key behavioral fact the schema cannot express, since required is empty.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then trigger, then exclusion, then constraint, then auth. Every sentence carries information, though the field list and permission clause make it slightly dense as a single block rather than clearly separated.

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 create tool with nine optional string params and no output schema, the description covers trigger, exclusion, minimum-content rule, quota behavior, and required scope. Only the success return (e.g. whether a company id is returned for chaining into link_company_to_workspace) is left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic content: it enumerates the accepted fields and spells out the closed value set for privacy_role (controller|processor|both), which the schema states only in prose. It does not add format guidance, but the coverage gap is small.

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+resource ('Create a company') and defines it functionally as 'a company item workspaces link to'. It explicitly names the two nearest siblings (link_company_to_workspace, update_company) so an agent can distinguish create from link and from update without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user adds a new client or company'), a follow-up action ('then link it with link_company_to_workspace'), and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it to change an existing company (update_company)'). The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully covered.

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