create_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that creating a company is free, that optional booleans default to None (inherit account defaults), and that sending False can actively disable paid features. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior beyond what the schema states. It does not detail response behavior, but an output schema is present, so that omission is acceptable.

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 organized with a clear purpose statement, a billing context sentence that earns its place, and a parameter list with concise inline explanations. The important warning about False versus None is front-loaded into the note section. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations)Skip? Actually no. Need final. Let's output.The description includes everything an agent needs: purpose, cost implications, parameter semantics, default inheritance behavior, and a dangerous edge case about False disabling paid features. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details. The only slight gap is not explicitly saying 'use update_company to modify an existing company,' but this is a minor omission given the clear onboarding context and the sibling list.

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. It does, covering all 9 parameters with meaningful semantics: name is required with an example, time_zone has a default and common values, each boolean explains what it toggles and that None means inherit, and account_id auto-resolves. This goes far beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new company (client) under the account.' It then clearly positions the tool for new-client onboarding and distinguishes it from related tools like create_tracker. The purpose is unmistakable even before looking at the parameter schema.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Useful for new-client onboarding') and connects it to the billing model, pointing to create_tracker for the actual cost-bearing provisioning step. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions versus update_company or list_companies, but the onboarding framing plus sibling reference is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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