list_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the employer-role requirement and that the result scope is limited to the caller's own companies, and it notes the default company is included. It does not state read-only semantics, ordering, or pagination, leaving gaps for a no-annotation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and appends the role requirement parenthetically. Nothing is wasted, though it packs the 'default company' detail in without explaining why it matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple no-param, read-oriented listing tool, the description covers scope and the access prerequisite; only mild gaps remain regarding read-only confirmation and result ordering.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies the implicit filter (current recruiter) rather than suggesting any inputs.

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: listing all company/enterprise entities under the current recruiter, plus the default company. It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like create_company and set_default_company, though it never names them to reinforce that distinction.

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 one prerequisite (requires the employer role), which is genuine usage guidance, but it offers no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use framing and no routing to siblings such as create_company or set_default_company. Usage is implied by the scoping to 'current recruiter' but not elaborated.

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