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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals critical non-obvious behaviors: existing companies are updated rather than duplicated, blank fields never overwrite existing data, and new companies are enriched in the background automatically. This gives an agent a clear mental model of the operation's side effects.

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?

Four tightly-written sentences with no filler. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded, followed by required inputs, then important behavioral details and enrichment behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements, deduplication/upsert behavior, and background enrichment. It does not mention what the tool returns or whether the write is synchronous, which is a real gap given the absence of an output schema, but overall it is quite complete.

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 low (26%), but the description compensates by adding the crucial rule that company_name plus a domain (or website to derive it from) is required, which is not clear from the schema alone. It also explains that blank optional fields are safe, and that enrichment happens in the background, clarifying the enrich parameter. Many other parameters remain undocumented, but their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 ('Push') and a clear resource ('a single company INTO Xmagnet'), and further clarifies the intent with 'add/save/send a company to Xmagnet.' The 'single company' wording distinguishes it from the batch-oriented sibling add_companies.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the user wants to add/save/send a company to Xmagnet' and includes concrete examples like researched, pasted, or found with another tool. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives such as add_companies for bulk imports.

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