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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations: it defines the returned content scope, forbids fabricating capabilities or offers, and specifies the escalation behavior for undefined products. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded, structured set of sentences: returns → when to call → grounding rules → routing. It is somewhat lengthy, but each sentence serves a purpose alerting the agent about both usage and factual safety constraints.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content, use cases, routing, and failure handling. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit output structure, but the description's high-level 'truth' framing makes that unnecessary 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single companyId parameter, including the member-requirement note. The description reinforces company scoping with 'THIS company' but adds no syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a specific resource: 'THIS company's product truth'—the operator-authored offer plus shipped, marketable capabilities and what the product cannot do. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_brand_guidelines or get_company by focusing on product truth.

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 explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Call this before describing, marketing, pricing, positioning, or selling the product.' It also provides routing rules and an escalation path ('If it reports the product is not defined, escalate to the operator instead of guessing'), giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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