conduyt_create_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it: it does not say whether a duplicate company/domain is rejected or merged, what permissions are needed, whether the created record is returned, or which fields have side effects. The only behavioral fact (name is required) comes from the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing is wasted.

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 12-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: an agent gets no information about return content, duplicate handling, or failure modes. The rich schema compensates for field meanings but not for behavioral context.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters (including the size enum and the 'US' country default) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics such as required-in-practice field combinations or domain/website interplay, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a new company record') and adds a scope hint ('with business details'). It is clearly distinguishable from update_company/get_company/list_companies by name and verb, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_company (for existing records), create_contact, or import paths. No prerequisites, deduplication rules, or exclusions are mentioned.

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