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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description then adds pagination behavior and the existence of structured filtering, and the REST endpoint implies GET/idempotent semantics. It still omits default/maximum page sizes and rate-limit behavior, but it meaningfully extends the annotation.

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 clauses front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then pagination support, then the REST endpoint. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 4-param read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives purpose, filtering, and pagination. It lacks any mention of what a page/response looks like or when an agent should prefer a filtered query over fetching all, but annotations plus schema cover most of the burden.

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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters (limit, cursor, filter, combinator) are fully documented in the schema, including the filter example and default values. The description only repeats 'cursor pagination and structured filters' without adding syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list/filter) and resource (companies) and adds the underlying REST endpoint, which reinforces the resource mapping. It does not differentiate from sibling list tools (folk_list_people, folk_list_notes, folk_list_groups), but the resource name is unambiguous against the create/get/update variants.

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?

The description says 'Supports cursor pagination and structured filters,' implying that this tool is the collection-listing entry point, but it never states when to use it over folk_get_company or how it relates to the create/update siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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