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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and destructive hints, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not: '1 point per returned record', i.e. a cost/credit signal, plus the shape of the returned data.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the identifying detail before the field list. The field enumeration is slightly run-on but each element serves the agent's selection decision.

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 read-only, non-paginated-preview listing with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-shape and cost information. Pagination and item limits are handled by the schema, so little is missing.

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 all three parameters (company, max_items, start_page) are already documented, including the slug/URL format and the 250 cap. The description only mirrors the company input hint and adds no syntax beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (competitors of one Owler company) and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly differentiates it from run_owler_companies and run_owler_companies_search. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus run_owler_companies_search or the sibling lookup tools, and no prerequisites or context beyond the input format hint '(slug or URL)'. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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