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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the structural constraint of at most 3 companies per region and the match-reason taxonomy, but says nothing about behavior such as how an unknown/ambiguous ref is handled. Adequate given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are information-dense with no filler. The full text is duplicated verbatim in Chinese and English, which is defensible for a bilingual audience but does double the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does it well: grouping, per-group cap, included fields and match reasons are all enumerated. The only gap is error/edge-case handling for an unresolvable ref, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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%, with both 'ref' (slug/UUID/name/alias) and 'lang' (enum zh/en) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (comparable companies for one AI company) and defines the exact shape of the result: grouping by US/China/Europe, up to 3 per group, with round, funding, valuation and match reasons. This scope is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_sector_landscape (sector-level) or get_organization_profile (single company detail).

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 implies the use case (fetch comparables for one company) and notes the data mirrors the svtr.ai company-detail page, which gives some context. However, it never states when to choose this over get_sector_landscape, get_organization_profile, or search_organizations, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a company ref.

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