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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries nearly the full burden and adds nothing about side effects, required auth, or duplicate handling. The REST endpoint reference is the sole extra detail and does not describe observable behavior beyond annotations.

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?

The two short sentences are front-loaded and waste no words. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than being genuinely efficient for a 13-parameter tool.

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 complex 13-parameter creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description omits return shape, defaults, and any behavioral caveats. Annotations are minimal, so the definition leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to fill.

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 all 13 fields including nested groups and the employeeRange enum documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond repeating that `name` is required, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Create a new company'), which cleanly separates it from sibling create tools for notes and people. It lacks any explicit comparison or scoping language, but the resource 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus folk_update_company or the other create tools, and no prerequisites, permissions, or idempotency/duplicate-handling notes are given. The only directive is a restatement that `name` is required.

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