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

Adds real context beyond annotations: one monthly research allowance is consumed only for newly tracked companies, results are async, and nothing is surfaced to the user until sightglass_show is called. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation (what the credit spend or overwrite actually affects), so it falls just short of full disclosure.

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-loads the operation, then cost, then async behavior, then the show hand-off. Sentences earn their place; only the closing 'the show call does not search again' is slightly redundant but still prevents a real mistake.

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 an async, open-world, credit-consuming tool with no output schema, it covers cost, timing, return shape (resultId only) and the required follow-up. What's missing is failure/partial-result behavior and how the resultId behaves if research is still pending.

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 100%, so domain, projectId and workspaceId are already documented. The description adds only an indirect hint about plan/allowance implications and gives no extra guidance on choosing projectId vs workspaceId, so 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 concrete verb (find or add) plus resource (company by website domain) and the downstream work queued (ads, landing pages, store details, technologies). The dual create-or-retrieve nature is clear, though it never distinguishes itself explicitly from sightglass_search_companies or sightglass_get_company.

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?

Gives a clear post-call protocol (call sightglass_show once with this resultId) and clarifies cost semantics for already-tracked vs new companies. It stops short of saying when to reach for this instead of the sibling search/get/company tools.

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