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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description usefully adds the underlying endpoint (GET /companies/{companyId}/data/info) and enumerates what the metadata contains, which goes beyond the annotation, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Two compact sentences: the purpose and return contents come first, the API endpoint second. No filler and nothing that does not earn its place.

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 partially compensates by sketching the return contents (base currency, supported data types, etc.), which is enough for a simple single-parameter read. A slightly fuller enumeration of the metadata fields would make it complete.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines companyId as a UUID. The description only reaffirms that it scopes the metadata to a single company, adding no new format or constraint information.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get a company's accounting metadata') with concrete content examples (base currency, supported data types). It is clear enough to distinguish from data-listing siblings like codat_get_data_status, though it never explicitly names that sibling or states the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent reads this as the metadata look-up for a company, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to codat_get_data_status / codat_get_company as alternatives. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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