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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the required permission scope (company_context:read) and the pagination contract (default 50, max 100, default offset 0). It stops short of describing ordering or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: identity/content first, then the routing rationale, then constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and no sentence is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, company_profile, created_at, updated_at), and it covers permissions and pagination. For a zero-required-parameter read tool, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documented with the same defaults, so the description mostly repeats the schema. No additional semantics (e.g., ordering, what offset counts against) are supplied. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("List your companies (client contexts)") and explains what each item contains (id, company_profile, created_at, updated_at). This clearly separates it from get_company, create_company, and the link/unlink siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to obtain a company_id (UUID) before calling get_company, update_company, delete_company, or link_company_to_workspace. The alternatives that consume the id are named, and the precondition is spelled out.

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