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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth prerequisite ("Needs companies.read"), which is genuinely useful context not in annotations, but says nothing about pagination semantics or the shape of results.

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, zero waste, with the resource and entity scope front-loaded before the paging and permission notes.

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?

Adequate for a 6-optional-param read tool: schema covers all parameters and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no sense of what a page contains or how it relates to the search-based sibling, leaving routing and result expectations to inference.

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 every parameter (embed, field, limit, order, offset, direction) is documented in-schema, including the somewhat tricky offset cursor protocol. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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+resource ("List companies") and clarifies scope by naming the entity types covered (customers, prospects, suppliers). It does not differentiate from the obvious sibling sellsy_search_companies or sellsy_get_company, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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?

Mentions paging and the required scope, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus sellsy_search_companies, sellsy_list_individuals, or sellsy_get_company. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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