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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds useful substance by disclosing the shape of what comes back (per-entity adoption counts plus radar ring). It does not say what 'PRO' access requires, whether results are cohort-scoped or limited in size.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the identifier and the payload: entity-by-entity adoption plus cohort count and radar ring. Nothing is padded. Minor deduction because terms like 'radar ring' and 'cohort' go undefined and 'PRO' is unexplained.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does sketch the per-entity fields. However it leaves key domain terms ('radar ring', 'cohort', what 'PRO' gates) undefined and says nothing about result size or ordering. Adequate for a read-only per-company lookup, but not fully self-contained.

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 slug and context are fully documented in the schema, including the slug format and the unusual read-only semantics of context. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so this is the baseline 3 for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource precisely — the company's adopted stack, broken out entity by entity across services, tools and standards, with cohort-adoption counts and a radar ring. An agent can tell it is a per-company adoption-signal read. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like company_dimensions, company_gaps or find_company_insights, so the sibling-routing credit is missing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition, and no named alternative. With ~60 siblings, including several company_* tools, the agent gets no signal on why it would pick company_signals over company_dimensions or company_whitespace. The 'PRO' tag hints at premium access but is not an invocation guideline.

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