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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and 'build a profile' is consistent with a non-read, open-world operation. The description adds value annotations do not carry: the account prerequisite and the concrete set of returned attributes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return shape, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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 correctly enumerates the returned fields; with annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is auth/cost context, and the free-account note covers the main part. It does not mention credit consumption or latency, which neighboring usage/credit tools suggest is relevant.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It correctly identifies 'name' as required and website/LinkedIn as optional, but adds no format, encoding, or URL-shape guidance and does not explain how the two optional identifiers are combined or prioritized.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Build a company profile' with named inputs (name, website, LinkedIn URL) and named outputs (description, sector, HQ, founding year, links). It is distinguishable from most siblings, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby get_company_by_linkedin / get_startup_by_domain tools, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 name/output-fields framing, and one prerequisite is stated ('Needs a free StartupHub.ai account'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_company_by_linkedin or enrich_email, so the agent must infer selection.

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