list_companies

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that results are limited to companies the token can access, which is useful scoping context, but it doesn't describe the return shape or whether the list can be empty.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the scoping condition is stated up front. It is slightly dense and relies on the parenthetical for the most actionable 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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden. It names the id but not the other fields likely returned (e.g. name), leaving an agent guessing about what the list items contain.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned id is what feeds company_id in subsequent calls, which is semantic meaning not present in the empty schema.

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 states the resource (companies accessible with the token) and the key returned datum (their id), which lets an agent distinguish this list tool from get_company_info. The verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name and noun phrase rather than stated, keeping it just 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?

It gives a concrete usage rule for the output — put the id in company_id if you manage more than one company — but says nothing about when to call this versus siblings like get_company_info or api_quota. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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