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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a hard 10-per-page page size, and that idle companies are excluded from results — a data-visibility caveat the agent cannot learn from the schema.

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 dense sentences plus the endpoint: record fields first, then capabilities, then transport. No filler, and the page-size constraint is front-loaded.

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 usefully enumerates return fields and pagination size. It leaves the pagination continuation (next_page) implicit, though the page parameter schema hints at it, and it does not say what totals/metadata come back.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds natural-language meaning by tying created_after/created_before to filtering and by stating that sorting is by name or creation date, effectively explaining the order_by enum. It does not mention page or meta, which the schema already covers.

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 CRM companies") and enumerates exactly what each record contains plus the supported filter/sort, which makes the listing role obvious against get_company. It never explicitly names a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the capability sentence: use it when you want a filtered, sorted page of companies. There is no explicit routing advice (e.g. to get_company for a single record, or to list_contacts for another entity), so the agent must infer alternatives from sibling names.

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