List Companies (Dalux)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining pagination through pageLink, scoping behavior, and the optional companyId. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Given the tool's 5 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (project, catalog, single fetch) and pagination continuation. Missing details on output format (list vs object) and parameter interdependencies are minor gaps.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the scope enum semantics and the dependency on projectId. It does not detail companyId beyond existence or fully explain pagination limits, but adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'companies', and specifies two distinct scopes ('project' vs 'catalog') and the option to fetch a single company by companyId. This differentiates it effectively from sibling tools like dalux_change_company or dalux_list_projects.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each scope (project requires projectId, catalog is account-wide) and how to fetch a single company. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives among siblings, but the clear scoping covers most usage decisions.

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