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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description adds only the upstream mapping (GET /companies). It does not mention pagination behavior, default/max page size, or that unfiltered calls may return large result sets, all of which matter for a 9-parameter list endpoint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what can be filtered, with the API reference trailing. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; the resource meaning is clarified and the endpoint is mapped. It stops short of noting cursor-based paging expectations or the shape/size of the returned collection.

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 nine parameters (sort, limit, cursors, modified_since, etc.) are already documented with formats and constraints. The description echoes only four of them ('name or _id, location and status') and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 and even disambiguates the domain term ('companies (teams/tenants renting space)'), so an agent knows exactly what is listed. It does not, however, contrast itself with the many sibling list tools (members, locations, contracts, bookings), so routing relies on the resource name alone.

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?

The phrase 'filterable by exact name or _id, location and status' implies the intended lookup scenarios, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool is named. An agent can infer usage but gets no help choosing between this and, e.g., officernd_list_members or officernd_list_locations.

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