company-technographics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the resolution order (primary domain first, then aliases) and by explaining what the adoption context values mean (using / adopting / replacing / evaluating). It does not disclose auth needs or rate limits.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the core resolution action and return contents are front-loaded, and the matching-rule detail follows in a supporting clause.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the return contents and the adoption-context value set, and it explains the matching behavior. Only the absence of any failure/not-found behavior or usage boundary with siblings keeps it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states 'primary or any known alias', so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by defining what an alias is (regional TLDs, legacy brands, subdomains), which materially clarifies an otherwise ambiguous input.

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 ('Resolve a company domain ... to its full profile') and enumerates the returned content (firmographics, hiring stats, tech stack). Siblings list_technologies and search_companies_by_technologies are clearly different operations, but the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'resolve a company domain to its full profile' and the example 'walgreens.com', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing statement toward the sibling tools for technology-centric lookups.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the sort behavior. No mention of data freshness, rate limits, or other traits. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. Every word adds value. It front-loads the purpose and immediately specifies the key parameter behavior.

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 read-only list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and sort options. However, it does not mention pagination limits or the returned data structure, which is a minor gap. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sort parameter (enum values) but omits page and page_size entirely. However, the schema has defaults and constraints for those, so an agent could infer. This is average coverage given the tool's simplicity.

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 it lists all technologies with company counts, using the verb 'Catalog' and specifying the resource 'technologies'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_companies_by_technologies (which filters by tech) and get_company_by_domain (retrieves a single company).

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 sort options (count, name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. The context is implied as an overview of all technologies, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: case-insensitive search, 10,000+ technologies tracked, ranking by usage, and match logic. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, description covers main behavior, match modes, case-insensitivity, and references sibling tool. Lacks explanation of ranking method and pagination, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 low (25%), but description compensates by explaining case-insensitivity for 'technologies' array and behavior of 'match' parameter. Does not cover 'page' or 'page_size' beyond schema defaults.

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?

Description clearly states it finds companies using given technologies, ranked by usage, and specifies case-insensitivity. It explicitly references sibling tool list_technologies for exploration, distinguishing purpose.

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?

Explains when to use the tool (find companies by technologies) and details match parameter behavior ('any' needs at least one, 'all' needs every one). Mentions case-insensitivity and suggests list_technologies for exploration. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is clear overall.

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