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.