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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes the HTTP method/path (GET /companies) but adds nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or response shape beyond naming the fields returned.

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?

Three tight sentences/clauses, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields before the filter list. Efficient, though the field enumeration and filter list partially overlap in concept.

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 an 11-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers both what can be filtered and what fields come back. Pagination is handled in the schema (offset/limit with next_offset guidance), so the description is largely complete for correct invocation; only alternative-tool routing is missing.

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 each parameter already carries its own semantics (partial-match rules, min lengths, default limits, next_offset usage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the filter dimensions without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 or search companies') and enumerates the returned fields (owner, industry, source, status, contact details) plus filterable fields. It is clear what the tool does and is distinguishable from teamgate_get_company, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the plural siblings teamgate_search or teamgate_list_company_people.

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 filter list implies when to reach for this tool (broad retrieval by name/email/phone/owner/VAT/date), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to teamgate_search for keyword queries or teamgate_get_company for single-record lookups. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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