list_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey that this is a search/list operation and explains the embedding behavior of 'with,' which is useful. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe response/pagination behavior, but the verb 'list' reasonably implies a non-destructive read.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the practical 'with' usage tip is placed second, making the entire definition easy to scan and understand.

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 simple list/search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and the most notable optional behavior. It omits explicit mention of pagination defaults or response shape, but those are either in the schema or reasonably inferable from the tool name and 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 the schema already documents page, with, limit, and query. The description adds a brief hint to use 'with' for embedding leads and contacts, but this largely restates what the schema's enum already communicates. No additional semantic depth is added.

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 the tool's verb and resource: 'Search and list companies in amoCRM.' It also explains a key capability, embedding linked leads and contacts via 'with,' which helps distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_leads and list_contacts.

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 resource name makes it obvious this tool is for companies, and the description implies it should be used when company data is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with list_leads, list_contacts, or search, leaving the choice to inference rather than direct guidance.

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