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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the shape of the returned payload (products, prices, availability, contact), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not cover catalog size or pagination.

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 with the resource, contents, and lookup key; nothing redundant or padded.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data lacks: the contents of the returned catalog. Only the absence of any size/volume expectation keeps it short of full.

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% and the schema already gives the format hint ('no https://') with an example. The description's 'by its domain' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a company's full AgentDNA catalog'), and enumerates the payload (products, prices, availability, contact) plus the lookup key (domain). It implicitly distinguishes itself from agentdna_list_companies and agentdna_search_products by promising the complete record for one company, but it never names those siblings.

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: 'by its domain' suggests you need a known domain and want everything at once, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over agentdna_search_products or agentdna_list_companies, and no mention of failure behavior for unknown domains.

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