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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the scope (authenticated company) and the specific fields returned (name, plan, usage) plus the REST endpoint, but does not elaborate on response format or rate limits, which is acceptable for a simple GET.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes only essential information (what it returns and the REST endpoint). No wasted words.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly defines the resource, scope, and returned details. The sibling context shows no overlap, so no additional guidance is needed.

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, so the base score is 4. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed and clarifies that it operates on the authenticated company, which adds meaning without needing parameter explanations.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves details of the authenticated Aircall company, specifically listing name, plan, and usage. The verb 'get' and resource 'company' distinguish it from sibling tools like aircall_get_call or aircall_get_user.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when needing company-level details for the authenticated account. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, though the unique resource makes this less critical.

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