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

The tool is a creation/mutation operation, and the annotation only supplies destructiveHint=true, which is about destruction rather than creation semantics. The description does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, whether duplicates are detected, what happens to nested structures like groups or customFieldValues, or what the response returns. For a 13-parameter create tool, this is thin.

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, front-loaded statements with no filler. The endpoint reference is compact and useful for developers, though it borders on implementational detail rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It is adequate for identifying the tool but does not help an agent understand return values, error cases, or the semantics of fields like groups and customFieldValues when populating them.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that `name` is required, which the schema already marks as required. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (company), and the 'folk_create_' prefix distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like folk_create_person and folk_create_note. It stops short of differentiating the tool's scope from folk_update_company or folk_get_company, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 tool versus alternatives such as folk_update_company (for existing companies) or folk_create_person. The only usage-adjacent statement is that `name` is required, which is already in the schema.

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