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

Beyond the annotations, the description is extremely thin. It only mentions the required access scope ('companies.write') and a side effect ('Nothing is sent to the company'), which is not particularly helpful or informative behavior for a mutation tool.

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 brief and to the point. While short, it packs in the necessary scope (WRITE) and the context (Sellsy), making it 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?

Given the high parameter count (11) and low coverage (36%), the definition is incomplete. A mutation tool of this complexity requires more guidance on optional fields, acceptable data constraints, or the structure of the response.

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 only 36%. The description fails to add any meaningful meaning or context to the 11 parameters, thus offering minimal value beyond the structure already provided in the schema.

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 identifies the action (create a company record) and the domain (Sellsy), which is specific enough. It distinguishes this from search/list tools by using the verb 'create'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation methods or how it handles missing data. It only mentions the required parameters implicitly via the schema.

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