List companies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by revealing that the endpoint is GET /public/v1/companies and that company records serve multiple roles (customers, vendors, brands). It also signals that the tool can be used as an intermediate lookup step, which is behaviorally relevant. No contradictions 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the brand-resolution use case is tucked into a second sentence. Every clause contributes.

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 simple read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers the key call context: the resource scope and a high-value use case. It doesn't describe return shape or pagination, but the page parameter schema already covers next_page behavior. Overall it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful hint that the 'name' parameter can be used to resolve brand names to brand_id, but it doesn't clarify the two undocumented parameters (ids, category). Overall, the description doesn't significantly compensate for the coverage gap, landing at baseline.

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 ('List') and resource ('company relationships'), then clarifies scope by noting customers, vendors, and brands all live here. The added note about resolving brand names to brand_id for product filtering makes it distinct from product/order/invoice list tools.

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 explains when to use this tool: when working with company relationships, especially when needing to resolve a brand name to a brand_id for product filtering. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other resources, but the sibling context and the brand resolution use case make the usage boundary reasonably clear.

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