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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the 'WRITE:' prefix merely restates structured data. The description omits real behavioral context such as whether duplicate companies are rejected or merged, and whether side-effect entities (source/industry auto-creation noted only in schema) cause extra writes.

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 fragments with no wasted words, but the size reflects under-specification rather than economy, and 'POST /companies' is low-value transport detail for an agent. It is front-loaded, so structure is acceptable.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no description of the created record, required permissions, or error/duplicate behavior. Annotations cover only the safety profile, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to call it correctly on the first try.

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 is documented inline, including enum-like values for customer_status and cross-references like teamgate_list_users. The description adds nothing 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 ('create') and resource ('company') plus the HTTP endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling creators like teamgate_create_person or teamgate_create_deal beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., required auth or owner lookup), and no note on duplicate handling. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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