list_companies

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Get all companies' is misleading because the schema includes search, limit, and start parameters, indicating it fetches a filtered/paginated subset, not all. No mention of read-only nature or output format.

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?

The description is extremely short (three words) but omits critical information. Conciseness is sacrificed for brevity, leading to incomplete guidance. A good description should be efficient yet informative.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify the return type (list of companies), pagination behavior, or any contextual usage notes. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity in invoking the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain how the parameters interact (e.g., search filters company name) or their semantics in context.

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?

The description 'Get all companies' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (companies). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'list_*' tools or clarify that it supports filtering/pagination, which is evident from the schema. A more precise description would distinguish it from similar tools.

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 like list_assets or list_contacts. No context about typical use cases or prerequisites for companies. This omission forces the agent to rely on heuristic matching with sibling tool names.

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