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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by disclosing that the operation is free, requires no auth, and returns a defined list of fields. It does not mention rate limits or behavior for unscored domains, but the read-only public-profile framing and auth disclosure are 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output contents, then adds the auth/cost fact. No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input domain implicitly, lists the output components, and states access requirements. It only lacks explicit error/empty-response behavior and domain format normalization.

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?

There is a single required parameter, domain, and schema description coverage is 0%; the description never mentions the domain parameter or clarifies expected format (e.g., bare domain vs URL, www normalization). The meaning is inferable from the word 'domain,' but the description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies the resource (public profile of a scored company) and enumerates the contents: score breakdown, category, geography, detected platform, social profiles, AI-crawler visit counts. It clearly distinguishes the tool from a simple score-only sibling like aeo_score, though it never names any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'Full public profile for a scored company' plus 'Free, no auth' implies when it should be used: when a complete public profile is needed and no authentication is available. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or call out exclusions.

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