Preview a company import (legacy route)

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

The description mentions the authorization class and the HTTP method, but annotations already convey safety cues (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). It does not explain the nature of 'preview' (e.g., whether it is a dry run or has side effects). Minimal added value beyond structured fields.

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 very short (two sentences), but it lacks informative content. It is efficiently sized but does not earn its place with meaningful guidance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested parameters, output schema available) and the lack of parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the preview returns or how to use the response, which is critical for a preview operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with a complex nested 'body' parameter. The description offers zero parameter information, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This is a severe gap.

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 'Preview a company import', using a specific verb and resource. The addition of '(legacy route)' hints at differentiation from newer import endpoints, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like pc_post_companies_import.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this legacy route is appropriate over other import preview tools.

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