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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: login is required, all statuses are returned including ARCHIVED, and company=null when none exists — details not derivable from annotations.

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-loads the login requirement and core behavior, then the null case, then the workflow hint. Dense and waste-free, though the clause stacking is terse enough to be slightly hard to parse.

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?

Covers auth, status scope, null return, and a follow-up workflow cue with no output schema present. Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around exact return shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Nothing in the schema needs compensating, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 (read) and resource (my own unique company), and disambiguates from get_company/list_companies by emphasizing '本人唯一公司' (my single company). An agent can distinguish it from the generic company getters without opening any schema.

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 directs the agent to read this first before modifying/taking down/deleting, which maps to update_my_company/archive_my_company/delete_my_company workflows. It gives a clear precondition but doesn't name the sibling tools, so it's slightly short of a full when-to-use routing.

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