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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: exact domain matching with URL example, name matching up to five candidates with confidence scores, empty-list-not-error behavior, no hiring signal, free/demo credential mode, and no billing.

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?

Dense but every sentence adds value. The critical when-to-use condition is front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior, return shape, edge cases, and cost/auth notes. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the empty-list behavior. It also covers error rules, demo authentication, billing, and directs the agent to is_hiring for hiring signals. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates fully: it explains domain accepts bare host or full URL and matches exactly, name returns up to five candidates with confidence levels, and both/neither is an error. It also documents the deprecated plane_api_key in the schema itself.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: find a company from its website or name when only that is known. It explicitly contrasts with every company-scoped sibling tool that requires company_id, so an agent can tell exactly when this tool applies.

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?

It clearly states the triggering condition: the agent has a company website or name but not company_id. It also gives precise invocation rules (exactly one of domain or name). It does not name alternative non-company-scoped tools, but the context is specific enough to route correctly.

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