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

readOnlyHint already declares this is a safe read. The description adds useful value by enumerating the fields returned (name, code, corporate number, address, phone), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which the schema only partially covers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the returned fields follow as a compact list. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers scope and returned fields, which is the main gap left by the absent output schema. Only missing piece is any hint about pagination or result volume.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (page, per_page) are fully documented in the schema including defaults and the 'use next_page' hint. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 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 the companies') and adds tenant scoping plus the Japanese term 会社, which disambiguates the business meaning. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling smarthr_list_business_establishments, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives — notably smarthr_list_business_establishments, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the word 'List'.

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