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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and openness are covered. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned (currency settings, feature flags), but says nothing about authentication/credential scoping behavior or pagination semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the endpoint reference; no filler. It could be slightly clearer about the list/pagination nature up front, but it's efficient.

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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The minor gap is that it doesn't flag pagination behavior or its overlap with jurnal_get_current_user.

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 the schema fully documents both page and page_size. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline of 3.

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 names the resource (the Jurnal company/companies the credential belongs to) and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, industry, address, tax number, currency, feature flags), plus the endpoint GET /companies. It's clear what the tool does, though it leans on the name/title for the 'list' verb and doesn't contrast itself with any sibling.

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's no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Notably it doesn't clarify its relationship to jurnal_get_current_user, which likely overlaps in returning credential-associated identity, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between the two.

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