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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the underlying API route and that the response is a paged envelope, but it says nothing about pagination iteration, rate limits, or what an empty result means.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the route and return-shape details. No filler, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like.

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 field enumeration (id, customerName, contactName, emailAddress, addresses, status, defaultCurrency) usefully compensates for the missing return contract, and paging inputs are covered by the schema. Only behavioral edge cases remain unaddressed.

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% with well-documented page, pageSize, query, orderBy and companyId, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's parenthetical lists returned fields (an output concern), not input parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (list a company's customers), names the returned fields, and cites the exact REST route GET /companies/{companyId}/data/customers. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like codat_list_suppliers or codat_list_companies, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., codat_get_company for a single company, or the other list_* endpoints). Usage is only implied by the resource name and the companyId requirement.

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