marketsharp_companies_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond them: the result set is restricted to companies the current API key is permitted to see, meaning the agent should expect a possibly partial list rather than all companies. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether inactive companies are included.

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 sentence with the action, scope, and return value front-loaded; no filler, no redundancy, and nothing left dangling that could be trimmed.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it yields (company records with IDs). Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination, and whether archived or inactive companies appear, which an agent might reasonably want to know before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so parameter semantics are baseline 4 with no burden on the description. The description correctly refrains from describing nonexistent inputs, though it also does not clarify any server-side filtering defaults that would substitute for the absent parameters.

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 MarketSharp companies") plus a scope ("this API key can access") and notes the returned identifier ("with their IDs"). It is clear on its own but never distinguishes itself from the sibling marketsharp_companies_get, so an agent must infer that this is the enumeration counterpart to that single-record fetch.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of IDs hints at discovery/lookup by ID, and the "this API key can access" phrasing hints at an authorization-scoped listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as marketsharp_companies_get for fetching a single company's details.

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