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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description still adds real substance: counts are rounded for non-super-admins, counts below 3 collapse into a band, and company names and raw job counts are withheld with an explicit 'do not guess them' instruction. What is missing is failure behavior for an unknown or unpublished slug.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with what is returned and scoped immediately after by the access-tier and privacy caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise get wrong, including the anti-hallucination warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be restated, and the description covers the non-obvious parts of the response: the hiring signal semantics and the deliberate omissions. It stops short of saying what happens for a missing or unpublished tool, which matters for a lookup-by-key tool.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by stating the key accepts either a slug or an id. That resolves the main ambiguity; it does not mention slug format or case sensitivity.

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 precise verb and resource — the full public profile of a published GTM tool — and adds the distinguishing payload (hiring signal). 'Published' and 'by slug or id' separate it cleanly from search_gtm_tools, which returns result sets rather than one full profile.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers 'call this when you already hold a slug or id and want the complete profile' and otherwise use search_gtm_tools or compare_gtm_tools. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative appears.

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