dealdesk.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 behavioral burden. It does not say whether results are paginated, what ordering applies, whether the search is fuzzy or exact, or what authentication scope is needed beyond the schema's projectId note. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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, no annotations, and only one of three parameters documented, the description should carry much more. It omits return shape, pagination, search behavior, and sibling differentiation, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently without guessing.

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 only 33% (projectId only), so the description must compensate and does not. The 'q' and 'limit' parameters receive no explanation of matching semantics or default/max behavior beyond the schema's numeric bounds.

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?

It names a specific resource (companies) and two verbs (search/list), so the agent knows the general operation. However, 'customer-directory companies' is the only scope qualifier, and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like dealdesk.get_company, dealdesk.discover, or dealdesk.list_contacts that operate on the same domain.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_company, discover, or any other list/search sibling. The 'Search or list' phrasing implies two modes without explaining what triggers which, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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