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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing allowance consumption, the confirmation gate, and polling/timeout behavior. However, annotations flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description never explains what is destroyed or that results come from external sources; it also omits the 24-hour idempotency replay window that the schema only implies.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraint, then cadence, then operations and return contract. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the polling sentence is the only one that could be tightened.

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 17-parameter, five-operation stateful tool, the description covers the confirmation and polling mechanics well and an output schema exists to cover returns. But it never maps which parameters belong to which operation, nor what select or refresh actually change, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of semantics — reusing identical inputs with confirm:true after a preview — but leaves the operation-specific field groupings (jobId vs researchId vs candidateIndex vs sectionIds) unexplained despite the schema's terse generic parameter text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Research a company from its real name and website") and enumerates the five operations, so the agent knows the tool is a stateful research workflow rather than a one-shot lookup. No sibling overlaps, so no discrimination is needed, but the description never states what a finished research result contains.

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?

Gives concrete procedural guidance: which operations need conversational confirmation, the confirm:false preview then confirm:true pattern, and a 5-second poll for up to 10 minutes. It does not explain when to choose select vs refresh vs create, leaving operation selection largely to the caller.

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