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

Opens with 'MUTATES Codat data', which is consistent with the destructiveHint=true annotation and warns the agent before it writes. It also discloses the underlying endpoint and the return shape ('includes its id'), adding value beyond the annotation. It does not state auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the mutation warning, then the resource, the parameter guidance, the endpoint, and the return value. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that the created company (including its id) is returned, which is what the agent needs to chain into codat_create_connection. Minor gap: 'tags' is mentioned as an optional attribute but no such typed parameter exists, so the agent must fall back to the fields escape hatch.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents name, fields, and description. The description restates those in prose but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details the agent can't already read in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('create a new company') and immediately disambiguates it from the sibling read tools by defining a company as 'a container for a customer's data connections'. Includes the concrete API operation POST /companies, so an agent can distinguish it from codat_create_connection at a glance.

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?

Implies usage ('Provide a name; optionally a description, tags, or other attributes via fields') but never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings like codat_create_connection, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing Codat account. Adequate context, no explicit routing or exclusions.

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