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

Annotations already establish non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavior: no notification is sent to the company, and a shareable link is returned. It doesn't specify what happens if the company is later listed or how the link behaves, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with the key behavioral caveat last. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully covers the return value (a share link) and the side-effect profile. However, for a tool whose only required input is domain, leaving both parameters undocumented is a real gap for correct invocation.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it mentions neither domain nor company_name. An agent cannot tell from the text which field is required or what 'domain' means (bare hostname vs URL).

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 concrete action (record interest in an unlisted company) and its outcome (a shareable link for publishing a trust center). The 'isn't listed yet' clause implicitly separates it from find_company, though no sibling is named 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?

Clearly establishes the condition for use: the company is not yet listed. The clarification 'No message is sent to the company' further distinguishes it from ask_company, which presumably does contact the company. No explicit exclusion sentence, but the context is inferable.

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