beel_list_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: always paginated, empty page for accounts with no companies, ordering by primary company, and exclusion of invoice series. It also flags a fiscal guardrail resource. No contradiction with 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 well-structured and concise: main behavior first, then exclusions, endpoint, and guardrail pointer. No wasted sentences; every part earns its place. The warning is clearly delimited and the pointer to docs avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and safe annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: response nature (paginated, empty page), ordering, search and include behavior, what's omitted, and access control. It also points to guardrails and exhaustive docs, ensuring agents have a way to get more detail if needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining search semantics (case-insensitive over NIF, legal name, trade name) and what include=readiness provides, and reinforces account_id's role in access control. This goes beyond the schema's concise descriptions, though not by a huge margin.

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 the tool returns a page of companies belonging to the account, ordered with primary company first. It names the specific resource (companies) and scope (account path), and explicitly mentions what is not included (invoice series), setting it apart from sibling list tools and the series endpoint.

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 directs users to a separate endpoint for invoice series, indicating when to use something else, and points to guardrails and docs for exhaustive rules. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_customers) or state 'use this when you need companies of an account' beyond the description itself. Still, the context is clear.

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