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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the conditional output behavior (cities only when a country+region is given) and enumerates response content including total company count. It doesn't explicitly state safety traits like read-only status, but for a taxonomy listing tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the taxonomy role is front-loaded and the actionable sequencing advice is placed at the end. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two-optional-param listing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the return content (countries, regions, cities, industries, statuses, company count) and the conditional drill-down behavior. The only gap is the exact response structure, which is minor for a taxonomy list.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by tying region/country to the taxonomy hierarchy (cities require country+region), but it doesn't add format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides.

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 and specifically defines the tool as the query-building taxonomy: countries with regions (and cities when country+region is given), industries, statuses, and total company count. The line 'Call this first to find valid slugs for the other tools' distinguishes its role from siblings like search_companies and get_site_info.

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 sequencing guidance—'Call this first to find valid slugs for the other tools'—telling the agent this is a prerequisite for the other query tools. It doesn't name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context for when to invoke it is clear.

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