get_player_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation benefit and that bonus fetching is optional, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when the user is not found.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope exclusion last. Every sentence carries information.

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 description usefully names the returned fields and the optional bonus, and the player_context parameter documents the per-request credential requirement. Minor gap: no mention of paging semantics or result ordering, though the schema covers limit/offset bounds.

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 limit/offset/user_id/username/include_bonus/player_context are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes the optional production bonus, adding no format or precedence guidance (e.g., user_id vs username) beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the companies a player owns') and enumerates the returned fields (product, location, workforce, production bonus). The negative clause 'not a country-wide company directory' separates it from directory-style lookups such as get_country_overview.

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?

Gives a clear usage trigger ('answers ownership questions in one call instead of many company lookups') and a when-not condition ('not a country-wide company directory'). It never names the specific sibling to use instead, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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