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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds substantial context beyond annotations: login requirement, that content is retained and owner-visible rather than erased, that edits republish, and that ownership/version drift causes rejection.

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 login requirement and scope, then the workflow, then the sibling alternative. Dense but each clause carries information; slight compression and punctuation-list style make it a touch harder to parse than optimal.

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 destructive two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, effect, retention, rejection conditions, and the confirmation flow. It omits only minor details (e.g., what the preview returns, failure surfaces), which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 only 25% (only companyId documented), so the description must compensate. It explains the two-phase semantics of preview (default true), previewHash (from the preview step), and consent=true (required to execute), effectively documenting all four params beyond the bare schema.

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 (下架本人公司主页) and immediately scopes it: stops public display/search, retains data, owner-visible. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_my_company (republish on edit) and delete_my_company (permanent deletion), so an agent can route 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, ordered workflow: call get_my_company first, default is preview, then confirm with same params + previewHash, consent=true, preview=false. It also names the alternative (delete_my_company) for permanent removal and the condition (ownership/version change) that causes rejection.

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