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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'WRITE' marker and the underlying POST endpoint, which corroborates rather than extends the annotations; it says nothing about duplicate-name behavior (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or error handling.

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 very short sentences, front-loaded with the write marker and no filler. The endpoint path is mildly redundant with the annotations but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

Annotations fully cover the safety semantics and no output schema is needed, so the core call contract is discernible. However, with five parameters and only partial schema coverage, the description leaves an agent without field-level guidance or any note on what a successful create returns.

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 60%, and the required 'name' parameter has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description adds no meaning about any of the five fields, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 ('create a company') and flags it as a write operation, which clearly separates it from get_company and list_companies. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling create_* tools (create_contact, create_deal), but the resource name does that implicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as cogmento_create_contact or cogmento_update_record_field, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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