teamleader_companies_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List companies' and filter options, which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination, response format, data scope (e.g., all companies vs. active only), or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a list tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff: 'List companies from Teamleader Focus. Can filter by name, VAT number, or tags.' It is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function and filter capability, but lacks details about return values, pagination, or any limits. For a list tool with no output schema, more context would be valuable, though the tool is relatively simple.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a conceptual summary by mentioning 'name, VAT number, or tags', but this slightly misrepresents the 'term' parameter which searches more than just name. It does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'List companies from Teamleader Focus', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like teamleader_contacts_list and teamleader_deals_list by focusing on companies. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from teamleader_company_info, which retrieves a single company, but the 'list' context makes this implicitly clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'List companies' and mentions filters, which is implied usage, but there is no information about prerequisites, when to prefer this over company_info, or any exclusions. With multiple list and info sibling tools, the lack of explicit usage context reduces utility.

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