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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: login requirement, included statuses, legacy PENDING_REVIEW semantics, null-return behavior, and uniqueness per user. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the login requirement, and organized into what it does and when to use it. Every sentence adds information; no filler or redundant restatement of the schema or title.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, return semantics, edge cases (null, archived, legacy pending review), and a concrete use case. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter meanings to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly relies on implicit current-user context instead of padding with parameter details.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('返回') and resource ('当前用户名下的一人公司主页'), and adds scope details: any status including ARCHIVED, PENDING_REVIEW as legacy-only, and company=null when not created. This differentiates it from siblings like get_company, update_my_company, and list_companies.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: read current fields, slug, and status before modifying company profile, plus the one-company-per-user invariant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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