companies_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds what the payload contains (CIF, addresses, bank info, sync settings, ANAF token status), which is real added value since there is no output schema. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether an empty organization returns an empty array.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is listed, what comes back, and what to do with the result. The scope constraint is front-loaded before the return-field inventory.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the key fields and naming the UUIDs the agent will need downstream. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty result, ordering), which is minor for a zero-arg 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly frames the implicit scoping (organization is derived from the authenticated user rather than passed in), which is the only semantic an agent needs here.

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 with explicit scope: 'List all companies belonging to the authenticated user's organization.' It also names a downstream sibling (companies_select), but doesn't contrast itself with companies_get, the other read sibling, which is the pair an agent is most likely to confuse.

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 final sentence gives a concrete use case and routes the agent to companies_select once UUIDs are known. There is no negative guidance (why to prefer this over companies_get, or that no filtering is possible), but the positive context is clear and actionable.

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