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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only factual lookup by listing the types of canonical facts returned and the intended question types. It does not mention recency or data source, but for a zero-parameter info retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core value ('Canonical facts') and immediately specifies the exact data fields and use cases. 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what content is available and when to invoke the tool. It leaves no ambiguity about what kind of questions this tool answers.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled; the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('get') and resource ('company info'), then enumerates exactly what facts are included: agency activity, address, phone, email, founding year, pricing model, and target industries. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by framing it as canonical company facts rather than service listings, service areas, or contact requests.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to answer questions about who IG Digital Lab is or how to reach them.' This gives clear context for selection, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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