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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds context beyond annotations by mentioning filtering, ordering, field selection, and cursor pagination, plus the underlying endpoint. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination termination, or other behaviors an agent might need.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and resource, and includes the key capability summary without redundant prose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list operation with no required parameters and fully documented schema properties, the description plus annotations are nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on sibling routing and return-value details, but the endpoint and capability list provide enough context for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents each parameter with examples. The description only restates capabilities like filtering and pagination that map to the schema parameters, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb-resource pair: 'List companies in the Keap CRM', which is specific and unambiguous. It differentiates from single-entity get_company by the 'List' operation and from other list_* tools by the 'companies' resource, but it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as keap_get_company for a single company or keap_list_contacts for a different entity. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list, with no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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