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

With only openWorldHint annotation provided, the description does disclose that the tool returns engineering anomaly fields, which adds value beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention any special behaviors such as pagination limits (though schema covers page/limit), rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single sentence (excluding the pricing note) that concisely states the purpose and output. It omits any fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 low complexity, the description, combined with a well-documented schema and an output schema, provides sufficient context. It lists the output fields, which is helpful, and the schema handles parameter details. It could mention result ordering or default behavior, but such details are not critical for a simple query tool.

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 the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description merely reiterates that company_name is required without adding meaningful parameter semantics. It does not explain formatting, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries engineering anomaly information for a specified company name, and lists the specific fields returned (document number, processing type, reason, result, department, date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_illegal or company_punish, which target other types of information.

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 implies when to use it (when you need engineering anomaly data for a specific company) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the extensive list of sibling tools, some explicit guidance on when to choose this over others would improve clarity, but the purpose is clear enough for basic usage.

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