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

Beyond annotations, the description flags important runtime behavior: 'Branch on status', ambiguous candidates are alternatives rather than a ranked answer, and call can take up to four minutes. These are non-obvious details for an agent and are not available in the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is four short sentences with no filler or repetition. It fronts the core purpose, then the key use-case guidance, behavioral ambiguity handling, and the runtime constraint, with each sentence adding distinctive value.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably covers the critical behavior: resolution to domain, ambiguity handling, status branching, and timeout. It still leaves statuses values and output shape unspecified, but for a single-focused lookup tool it is sufficiently 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?

The schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the default baseline is 3; nonetheless the description adds parameter-selection guidance by stating when to supply country and article context for ambiguous cases. It reinforces which optional fields matter and when, which is useful beyond the schema text.

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-resource pair ('Resolve a company name to its official domain') that clearly communicates the tool's unique purpose. This differentiates it from sibling enrichment tools such as companies-enrich_firmographics or companies-generate_summary, and no other sibling covers domain resolution.

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 gives concrete usage context: supply country and article context for ambiguous names, and treat ambiguous candidates as alternatives rather than a ranked result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the tool's domain-specific purpose stands apart from the sibling set, making explicit exclusions less necessary.

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