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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is established. The description adds that results are cursor-paginated and filterable, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about max page size behavior, ordering, or what an empty result means.

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 fragments, front-loaded with purpose followed by capability and endpoint provenance. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint reference is of marginal value to an agent choosing a 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: cursor pagination and structured filtering, with the schema supplying full parameter detail. It is slightly thin on result shape, but annotations and schema carry most of the load.

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 four parameters (limit, cursor, filter, combinator) are fully documented in the schema, including the filter expansion syntax and the nextLink cursor source. The description adds nothing beyond this, so 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+resource ('List/filter companies') and even names the underlying REST endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with non-list siblings like folk_get_company, but no ambiguity arises from the list-tool family.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for enumerating companies, and the pagination/filter mention hints at when it fits. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., use folk_get_company for a single record) and no exclusions.

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