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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds that results are paged and clarifies the underlying read via 'Copper REST: POST /companies/search', which pre-empts confusion about a POST-shaped read. It still says nothing about result ordering defaults or empty-filter cost, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose and scope; nothing is padded. The trailing REST endpoint note is mildly informational rather than action-guiding, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 10-filter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (optional filters, paged results) but never characterizes what a returned company contains or how pagination interacts with sorting, leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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% and all 10 filters (name, city, state, country, tags, assignee_ids, sort_by, sort_direction, page_size, page_number) are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that filters are optional, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Search/list companies') and makes clear it operates over the company collection rather than a single record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search siblings like copper_search_people/copper_search_leads or from copper_get_company, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'All filters optional' implies you can call with no arguments to page through all companies, which is real usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over copper_get_company or the other search_* tools, and no exclusions.

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