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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is free and requires no auth, and that it returns AI-crawler visit counts, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation set. It does not, however, describe caching, rate limits, or error behavior for unknown domains.

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 sentence front-loads the resource and enumerates the return contents, and a second short sentence covers access terms. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, that it is free, and that no auth is required. A minor gap is the domain format and what happens when no profile exists for a domain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a single required parameter, the description implies that the profile is keyed by company domain. It does not state domain format (bare vs. URL) explicitly, but the parameter is self-evident from context and the rest of the description. Baseline for a single param with no schema docs is well served here.

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 (get) and resource (full public profile for a scored company) and enumerates exactly what the profile contains. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like aeo_score or aeo_audit, which are action-oriented, without opening any schema.

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 usage by listing what's returned and noting it's free with no auth, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as search_companies or aeo_score. The condition that selects this tool is left to inference.

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