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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds the underlying endpoint (GET /companies) and the paged response envelope { results, pageNumber, pageSize, totalResults, _links }, which compensates for the absent output schema. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or default ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the domain gloss, then the endpoint and return shape. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: what a company is, the API surface, and the paged return shape that stands in for the missing output schema.

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% (page, query, orderBy, pageSize are each documented in-schema with examples and bounds), so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 the companies in your Codat account') and goes further by defining what a company is, which makes the boundary against codat_get_company and codat_create_company obvious without opening either schema.

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 by the resource definition (companies are the customer businesses holding data connections), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer codat_get_company or codat_list_connections, and no mention of when filtering via the query parameter is warranted.

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