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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about result ordering ('active first') and the important exclusion ('Contact details are never included'), but omits pagination or result-size behavior.

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 dense sentences; the returned-field list and the disambiguating purpose clause are front-loaded with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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-param read tool with no output schema, it covers identity, returned fields, ordering, input formats, and a notable exclusion. The only gap is no mention of pagination or limits on the attached productions list.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema has no description, so the description must carry the load. It does so by specifying three accepted input forms for id_or_slug (slug, id, or productionlist.com/production-contact URL), which is essential invocation knowledge not in the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('One production company') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (description, categories, website, url, productions). The clause 'This is the tool for what is [company] working on' sharply distinguishes it from search_companies.

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 phrase 'This is the tool for what is [company] working on' clearly signals when to use it, and the accepted identifier formats (slug, id, URL) guide input selection. It does not explicitly name search_companies as the alternative for discovery or state when not to use it.

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