list_companies

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

As annotations are absent, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the output includes open counts and that a category filter is optional, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how filtering behaves, or any limitations. The simple nature of the tool mitigates this, but more context would improve transparency.

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 short sentences that immediately state the primary function and the only optional filter. It contains no fluff and is well structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers its purpose and the filter parameter. It does not describe the exact response structure, but 'with open counts' implies the output includes company names and counts. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this is reasonably complete for a list endpoint.

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 schema provides only a bare 'category' string with no description. The description adds 'Optional category filter,' clarifying that the parameter is not required and is used for filtering. This is meaningful enrichment, though it lacks details like allowed values or default behavior.

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 tool lists companies hiring remotely with open counts, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_categories and search_remote_jobs by focusing on companies, not categories or jobs.

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 listing companies and mentions an optional category filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are referenced.

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