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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering is possible across several facets but reveals nothing about result volume, default page size behaviour, or how multiple filters combine — the 'Teamleader: companies.list' line is an API reference, not behavioral context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the filter capabilities. The trailing 'Teamleader: companies.list' identifier is marginal overhead but negligible.

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, non-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the entry point but stays silent on pagination defaults, sorting, and what a company record contains. Annotations handle safety, and the schema handles most params, so the gaps are moderate rather than blocking.

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 80%, so the schema already documents term, email, vat_number, tags, updated_since and paging. The description's filter list largely restates those fields and adds no syntax or format detail (e.g. that `term` is a broad multi-field search while `email` is exact). 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 and resource ('List or search companies (organisations)') and sketches the filter surface. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer that single-record retrieval belongs to teamleader_get_company rather than being told.

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 only implied by 'List or search' — the description never says when to prefer this over teamleader_get_company or how it relates to lookup-by-id. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no explicit routing advice.

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