crehq_companies_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List'), the response contents (links to store counts, FDD financials, real-estate criteria, contacts), and pagination. However, it omits details like auth requirements, rate limits, default ordering, or behavior when no results match.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: scope, filters, record contents, and pagination. No filler or redundant repetition.

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 list tool with optional filters and pagination, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (companies), what each record links to, and pagination. It works well even without an output schema or annotations, though a bit more on response structure or default behavior would make it complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context (e.g., 'discover brands actively opening or closing units' relates to expansion_status) but largely repeats what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('franchise & multi-unit brands tracked in CREHQ's ... database'), enumerates verticals, and clarifies the filtering capabilities. It clearly implies a list/explore tool distinct from search/get siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like `crehq_companies_search`.

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 gives a clear use case ('Filter by category or expansion status to discover brands actively opening or closing units') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus `crehq_companies_search` or `crehq_company_get`, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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