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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: login requirement, immediate public visibility (立即公开), asynchronous processing triggered (触发异步处理), and slug_taken recovery. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with bracketed tags front-loading the login requirement, then the chain. No wasted words; every clause carries a distinct fact (auth, uniqueness, visibility, async, error recovery, workflow).

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, uniqueness, side effects, error handling, and workflow position, which is nearly everything needed. It could note what the async processing produces, but annotations and schema carry the rest.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining the slug_taken conflict path (换slug), which is a behavioral constraint on the required slug parameter.

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 (创建/更新本人公司) plus the key scope constraint 一人一家 (one company per person). An agent can distinguish it from update_my_company and create_organization because the uniqueness rule and the confirm-then-create framing are explicit.

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?

Provides prerequisites (需要登录) and an explicit ordered chain get_my_profile→确认资料→create_company→complete_onboarding, which tells the agent exactly where this fits. It does not explicitly contrast with the update_my_company sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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