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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond that — the response also includes an open-jobs count — but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unknown slugs, or response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence that delivers the resource, the lookup key, and an important return field with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what is fetched and one salient return field, and the annotations cover safety. It is only marginally thin on slug-sourcing and miss/error handling.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter; the schema only supplies a pattern, not an explanation. The description partially compensates by saying 'by slug', implying it is a company identifier, but adds no format, case, or sourcing guidance beyond what the pattern already encodes.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company details'), plus a notable return field ('number of open jobs'), so the agent knows exactly what this tool retrieves. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like list_companies or get_job, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'by slug' phrasing signals a direct single-entity lookup as opposed to the sibling list_companies or search_jobs. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so the agent must infer routing.

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