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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the backing endpoint (GET /companies) and the domain meaning of the resource, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or result ordering beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource before the filter list. The parenthetical domain gloss earns its place; the trailing endpoint reference is borderline but harmless.

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?

With no output schema, the description could hint at return shape, and it omits pagination guidance despite cursor parameters. However, the fully documented schema covers parameters and safety is covered by annotations, so the definition is adequate if not rich.

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% and all 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only restates a subset of filters (name/_id, location, status), so it adds no meaning beyond the structured definitions; 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 and resource ('List companies') and adds domain clarification that companies are 'teams/tenants renting space'. It does not distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as officernd_list_members, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 names the available filters (name/_id, location, status), which implies the retrieval contexts the tool serves, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to a sibling like officernd_list_members or officernd_get_organization.

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