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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them by explaining freshness_status states and the precedence rule that edited_fields values live on the company record and 'win over research'. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or errors, but for a read tool the added semantics are substantial.

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?

It front-loads the core return shape and then adds scoped clarifications for freshness_status, edited_fields, and legacy_fields; each sentence carries distinct meaning. The sentences are dense and comma-heavy, which slows parsing slightly, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description rightly explains the return payload and its three field categories, which is the main completeness win. The gap is on the input side: how limit behaves, whether history is truncated, and what happens for an unknown cardId are all unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it never mentions cardId or the limit/query cap. Only the incidental phrase 'one company' hints that the identifier targets a single company; the limit parameter and its default of 100 are entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns what research found about one company', and enumerates the payload (value, source, evidence link, confidence, freshness, history). That clearly separates it from siblings like getCompanyNoteCounts or listCompanyFitRatings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the tool for researched facts on a given company, but there is no 'use this when...' clause and no mention of when another tool (e.g. updateCompany, getCompanyNoteCounts) is the better choice.

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