List Companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior (despite page/page_size params), result limits, or required permissions, leaving real gaps for an agent to infer.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then filtering options, then the use case. No filler or restatement of structured fields beyond what is needed.

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 simple zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering but omits pagination/sorting behavior and the shape of returned company records (including IDs it promises). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so all five params (page, sort, query, status, page_size) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the query/status filtering behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, matching the baseline.

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 companies (clients) in Productive.io') and clarifies the domain synonym 'clients'. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling list tools or from productive_get_company, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a motivating use case ('find company IDs needed for creating projects or filtering deals'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never names an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, e.g. that productive_get_company is for a single known company.

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