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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses tiered rate limits (anonymous 10/min, 100/day; free key 50/day), tiered page caps (20 free vs 100 paid), latency expectations (<150ms typical, p99 <400ms), and the pagination contract (meta.has_more, meta.next_cursor). It also clarifies that cursor comes from the previous response, which is operationally important.

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?

Front-loaded and scannable with labeled sections (Use when / Do NOT use / Inputs / Returns / Cost / Latency). Minor redundancy: the sentence "Useful for enumerating the surveillance ecosystem by sector" restates the first bullet in the "Use this tool when" list, and the Cost/Latency blocks are verbose, but no section is expendable.

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 supplies the return shape itself (slug, name, parent_company, industry, data_categories, data_cost_usd plus pagination meta). Combined with cost, latency, and parameter docs, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: industry is given concrete enum-like examples (ad_tech, analytics, data_broker, social, crm), limit is documented with default 50 and tier-dependent maxima, and cursor is explained as originating from the prior response's next_cursor. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Returns a paginated list of corporate entities") and immediately names the fields returned and the domain (TunnelMind surveillance database). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_entity, search, and list_domains, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Contains explicit "Use this tool when" and "Do NOT use this tool when" sections, each naming the alternative tool to use instead (get_entity for full profiles, search for name lookup, list_domains for domain data). The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully covered.

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