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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint 'GET /companies/', which gives no behavioral context such as pagination defaults, the maximum page size, or result 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?

Two compact fragments, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing raw HTTP endpoint is low-value for an agent that never issues HTTP calls directly.

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?

Schema and annotations together carry parameters and safety, leaving the description thin but workable. With no output schema, the description never indicates the shape of the returned list or how next_start is surfaced, which is a real gap for a paginated listing tool.

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 sort, limit, start and the filter structure are already fully documented in the schema. The parenthetical '(name, website, contacts)' loosely suggests filterable fields but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 or search companies') with a hint of what is searchable (name, website, contacts), which distinguishes it from cogmento_get_company and cogmento_create_company. It lacks any explicit naming of those siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to prefer cogmento_get_company when a specific ID is known, or cogmento_list_contacts for people rather than companies. 'List or search' implies two modes but never explains how to choose between them.

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