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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /companies) and the optional tag filter; it says nothing about whether results are paginated in practice or how 'next_page' behaves.

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?

Four short sentences with the capability declared first and the alternative second; nothing is padded. The trailing 'GET /companies.' is low-value for an agent but harmless.

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-required-parameter read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly. The only gap is that neither annotations nor description explain the returned collection shape or total-count behavior.

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 100%, so page, perpage, order, includes and tag_name are already fully documented. The description restates the tag filter and summarizes the ordering dimensions (name, creation, last update), adding little beyond the enum descriptions.

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 ('List companies') and immediately scopes it with the available filter/order options, which separates it from get_company and search_companies. It does not distinguish itself from centralstationcrm_count_records or list_people-style siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 routes name lookup to search_companies ('Use search_companies to find one by name'), giving a clear when-to-use-alternative rule. It offers no guidance on when to prefer count_records or search_all, and no note on paging through results beyond the schema hint.

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