ebms_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no credentials are needed, and it surfaces the key limitation that nothing marks a company as live or test. The 'list' verb implies read-only and the output fields are enumerated. It stops short of explicitly stating a lack of side effects, but coverage is strong for a listing tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, when to call it, and the live/test caveat. The most important scoping information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It enumerates the returned fields in prose, covers authentication requirements, gives trigger conditions, and flags ambiguity about live vs. test copies. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to elaborate. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing input details.

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 and resource ('List the companies (datasets) this server can reach') plus the exact fields returned (name, ID, version, write permission). The specifics of a company catalog listing clearly set it apart from siblings like ebms_get, ebms_write, and ebms_command, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit, actionable when-to-call guidance: 'Call it when the user names a company you haven't seen, or before the first write of a session.' It also warns that no marker distinguishes live vs. test copies and to ask when unsure. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but 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.