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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which could puzzle an agent for a research tool; the description resolves this by stating the result is 'Saved in the user's Puley history', explaining the write side effect. It also enumerates the content returned and implies open-web lookup via 'latest news', though it says nothing about latency, cost, or failure modes.

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: the first front-loads the use case and the payload, the second handles both parameters plus the side effect. Nothing is repeated from the title and there is 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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description needs to preview return contents, and it does so field by field. The remaining gap is minor: no statement of expected depth or freshness of the news component.

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 carries the load and does: 'company' accepts a name or a domain (example acme.com), and 'country' selects the news edition. That is enough to format inputs correctly despite the bare schema, though it does not say what happens if country is omitted or invalid.

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 concrete resource and scope: a single-company brief containing what the company does, industry, headcount, website, LinkedIn and latest news. That is specific enough to separate it from competitor_report or account_report, although it never names a sibling 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?

The opening clause 'A company before a sales call' gives a clear usage context, so an agent knows this is pre-meeting research rather than a comparison or account-level report. It stops short of exclusions or pointing to alternatives for multi-company or existing-account needs.

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