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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description corroborates the write nature with its 'WRITE:' prefix and adds useful return info ('Returns the new company's id') in the absence of an output schema. It does not, however, explain the surprising destructiveHint=true for a create, or any duplicate-detection side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker, then the required-parameter constraint, then the return value, then the raw API mapping. No filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (mutating, name-only required, returns id), but leaves the other nine fields uncharacterized and says nothing about permissions, error conditions, or duplicate handling.

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?

The schema has 10 parameters at only 50% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for the undocumented ones (remarks, website, vat_number, telephones shape, name constraints). It only restates that name is the sole required field, which the schema's required array already conveys.

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 ('create a new company in Teamleader'), which is unambiguous against siblings like teamleader_list_companies or teamleader_get_company. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the create/list/get split is obvious from the name and description.

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?

'Only name is required' gives a minimal calling hint, implying a bare-minimum invocation is valid. However, there is no guidance on when to create a new company versus reusing an existing one, no prerequisites (auth scopes, permissions), and no warnings about duplicate creation.

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