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

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and the specific data fields returned, but it does not mention behavior for invalid URLs, missing fields, rate limits, or error cases.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical field list. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely sufficient: the input is fully documented by the schema, and the description clarifies the expected output fields. It is missing explicit usage guidance and failure behavior, but the low complexity keeps these gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the url parameter with an example. The description merely restates 'Crunchbase company URL' without adding deeper parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and names a clear resource: structured company data from a Crunchbase company URL. The enumerated fields (website, location, funding, etc.) make the tool's scope concrete and distinguish it from sibling LinkedIn/email/phone tools.

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 use case is implied: use this when you have a Crunchbase company URL and want company data. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like run_linkedin_company_search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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