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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that — the returned fields, the GET endpoint, and its role as a prerequisite for other tools — but it does not mention authentication or pagination behavior.

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 compact elements — resource with fields, first-call guidance, and endpoint — with no wasted words. The most useful information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: the resource, returned fields, endpoint, and its dependency role. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, zero parameters gives a baseline of 4.

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 the resource — companies linked to the connected Oblio account — and names the returned fields (CIF, name, access level). It clearly identifies what the tool retrieves, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not explicitly contrast itself with other list tools.

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?

It gives strong usage context: 'Good first call: every other tool needs a CIF from here.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it and why, but no when-not-to-use condition is provided.

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