list_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' which is valuable context beyond basic functionality, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List all companies in Freshdesk') and adds the key behavioral detail ('with pagination support'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details about authentication, rate limits, error handling, and return format that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'pagination support' which hints at the purpose of the two parameters (page and per_page), but doesn't explain their specific semantics, defaults, or constraints. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('all companies in Freshdesk'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'find_company_by_name' and 'search_companies' by specifying 'all companies' without filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'view_company' which appears to be a single-item view tool.

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 implies usage for retrieving all companies with pagination, suggesting it's for bulk retrieval rather than filtered searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search_companies' or 'find_company_by_name', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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