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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the API returns immediately and results are obtained by polling the signal ID or via webhook. This is valuable operational information not covered by the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the primary action and object. It efficiently conveys both the purpose and the key async behavior.

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 the tool's complexity and rich input schema, the description provides the essential async workflow but omits guidance on alternative tools and edge cases like cache behavior or webhook limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% and each property has detailed descriptions with examples and constraints. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the schema carries the full semantic burden, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool creates a company research signal, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from retrieval tools (get/list) but does not explicitly distinguish from the batch creation sibling, making the distinction implicit.

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 explains the asynchronous execution model (return immediately, poll or webhook) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like company_signals-create_batch or the get/list tools. No exclusions or preferred use contexts are mentioned.

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