companies_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned (CIF, addresses, bank info, sync settings, ANAF token status), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, response format/granularity, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a zero-parameter list tool the risk is low, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second lists the return content and names the downstream consumer tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with a well-known return shape (company details), the description covers the key information: scope, return fields, and usage purpose. No output schema exists, so the description's listing of return content (CIF, addresses, bank info, sync settings, ANAF token) is the primary transparency mechanism and is sufficient for agent decision-making. It could note pagination, but for a scoped list this is minor.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (nothing to document). With no parameters, the baseline should be 4 per the rubric. The description adds clarity about return content details, which partially compensates even though there are no params to explain.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List all companies') with clear scope ('belonging to the authenticated user's organization'). It distinguishes from the sibling companies_get (single company) and companies_select tools by explicitly noting its purpose is to find company UUIDs for companies_select.

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 clear context on when to use it (to discover company UUIDs for the companies_select tool), which orients the agent. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but for a list tool the implicit usage is clear and the reference to companies_select gives useful downstream guidance.

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