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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely extra behavioral context about result trust — domain-verified matches are proven, name-only matches are self-asserted — and tells the agent to surface that distinction. It omits what happens on no match or multiple matches.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup keys, followed by the trust caveat that materially affects how the result should be reported. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the second sentence is long.

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, annotated read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is found and how far the result can be trusted — the critical decision input. Missing only edge-case behavior (no result, multiple candidates).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden; it partially does by stating the query accepts a name or a domain. It does not clarify matching behavior, case sensitivity, or how ambiguous/partial queries are resolved, so the lone parameter remains only half-documented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find a company's public trust center') and names the lookup keys ('by name or domain'), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_trust_profile or ask_company, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 by the lookup framing (use this when you need to locate a company by name or domain), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus ask_company/invite_company/get_trust_profile routing and no stated preconditions.

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