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 real value beyond that: it discloses the access-control scope ('this access key can reach') and the exact payload fields (id, name, address, CoC and VAT numbers, start date), which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination behavior is left entirely to 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 tight sentences: identity and returned fields first, then the actionable instruction. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 field enumeration is essential and present, and the access-key scoping is a meaningful constraint. The only shortfall is that it says nothing about result volume or how to page through a long list, which the schema only partially covers.

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 the single offset parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the next_offset continuation hint. The description says nothing about pagination or result-set size, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — 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 (List) and resource (administrations), disambiguates the term with a parenthetical definition ('companies with their own books'), and scopes it to what the access key can reach. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell this apart from siblings like yuki_list_domains or yuki_list_projects without opening any schema.

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?

'Use the ids in the other tools' gives downstream context — this is the id-discovery step — which implies when to call it. But no sibling is named as an alternative and no exclusion or precondition is stated, so the agent must infer that this is the entry point rather than, say, yuki_list_domains.

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