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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about the returned profile fields, but does not disclose much about output structure, error behavior, or response limitations. It is not contradictory, but does not go far beyond the 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 single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the useful output fields. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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, read-only profile lookup, the description covers the purpose and main returned fields. Since no output schema exists, the description partially substitutes for it by listing the key company attributes, though it does not expose every possible field or an exact response structure.

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 already fully documents the only parameter with a helpful domain/handle example. The description does not add any new semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('company profile') and lists concrete returned content: open job count, industry, size, and career page URL. This clearly distinguishes get_company from sibling job-search tools like search_jobs or get_job.

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 for company-profile lookup, and the sibling context makes the distinction from job tools apparent. However, the text itself does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the listed alternatives.

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