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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful traits beyond the name: archived companies stay readable, lifecycle is derived from companies.archived_at, and archived companies should not be treated as live. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or describe response structure, but the 'get' wording plus the archived behavior is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second adds the critical archived-state caveat and routes mutation actions to the correct sibling. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key behaviors, the main output categories, and the related mutation tool. It could be more complete by describing what include_settings changes in the response or clarifying the 'live districts' phrasing, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'settings' and 'lifecycle,' which loosely map to include_settings and the response, but it does not add real meaning beyond the schema parameters themselves.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed company profile'), and lists the included content: mission, vision, settings, and lifecycle state. It also distinguishes itself by calling out archived vs. active semantics, which helps separate it from other get_* and company-related siblings.

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 provides useful usage context: archived companies remain readable and should not be treated as live districts, and it explicitly directs lifecycle mutations to set_company_lifecycle. It does not fully enumerate when to choose this tool over other company/profile-related alternatives, but the most important routing guidance is present.

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