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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry company counts and that this is a lookup step, but says nothing about list size, pagination, or completeness of the enumeration – modest added value over 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?

Two short sentences: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call it. Zero filler and the output content is front-loaded.

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 parameterless-in-practice, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and usage trigger. The only real gap is the undocumented `kind` filter, which is minor but not zero.

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% and the description never mentions the single `kind` parameter, so the agent must infer from the enum (both/sectors/countries) that it can narrow the response to one axis. With no schema documentation, the description should have compensated here and does not.

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 (sectors and countries) and states what the call returns (company counts), plus its role as a filter-value reference. It implies a list verb clearly enough to distinguish from find_ai_jobs/search_ai_companies, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

"Call this first if unsure how a sector or country is spelled" gives an explicit triggering condition and ordering advice. It does not name which sibling consumes these filter values, so the routing guidance stops just short of a 5.

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