pax8_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 burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it disclose rate limits or any other behavioral constraints. It does explain pagination parameters, which helps, but for a tool with zero annotations, a bit more explicit disclosure (e.g., 'This is a read-only operation') would be ideal.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clean, tabulated Args block. There is no redundant phrasing, and the key information is front-loaded. Every line adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description covers the operation and parameters sufficiently. It does not mention any edge cases (e.g., empty results, error handling) but for a simple list tool this is acceptable. The sibling context and lack of nested objects keep the complexity low, so the description is complete enough.

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?

The description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters that go well beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'page' is zero-based, 'size' is the number of results, 'sort' follows a specific format ('name,asc'), and 'name' is a partial match filter. With 0% schema coverage, this is a strong compensation—an agent can correctly construct calls without needing additional 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'companies in the Pax8 partner account'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like pax8_list_company_contacts (contacts) and pax8_list_invoices (invoices), leaving no doubt about what this tool returns.

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?

The description makes it obvious when to use this tool—whenever a list of companies is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, but because all siblings are for different entities, the context alone provides sufficient guidance. A small mention of 'use this for companies, not contacts' would make it a 5.

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