create_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the write nature of the operation, explains that invalid countries are refused before a request is made, states the tenant comes from the session credential rather than arguments, and notes the admin authorization and the returned fields.

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 four dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds constraints, authorization context, and return information, with each sentence contributing distinct 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?

For a 5-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description covers the key invocation facts: allowed countries, required parameters, tenant sourcing, authorization, and return content. The main gap is the lack of detail on optional parameters and any behavior around existing companies or tenant prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the country parameter (allowed values and pre-request rejection) and clarifies that the tenant is not a parameter. However, it leaves name, purpose, industry, and output undefined beyond their names and defaults.

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 names a specific action ('Create a company') on a concrete resource ('in the signed-in user's tenant') and adds a sharp geographic scope (Australia and Canada only). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among the large set of company_* siblings.

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 provides clear context: it is for creating a company in the caller's tenant, restricted to AU/CA, and requires tenant-admin authorization. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_companies or company_launch, leaving that to inference.

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