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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads 'the homepage and a few contact/about pages, nothing behind a login,' which specifies scope and boundaries. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and provides detail on what pages are accessed without contradicting 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?

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then lists outputs, then adds behavioral details, and ends with usage guidance. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it reads, what it returns, and its single-company scope. It does not mention potential failure modes or edge cases, but these are not critical given the schema and annotations. It is adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 must explain parameters. It mentions 'Give it a company domain' which maps to the url parameter, but it does not explain the 'contacts' boolean parameter at all. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool profiles a company website and lists the specific data returned (firmographics, contact emails, social links, contact form). It distinguishes itself from directory search by stating it is 'not a directory search' and is the 'single-company half of a lead pipeline,' making it unambiguous vs. siblings like search or findLeads.

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 description gives clear usage context: 'Use it to enrich one company' and 'single-company half of a lead pipeline, not a directory search.' This implies when to use it (single-company enrichment) and when not (directory search), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or conditions.

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