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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds value by detailing the exact scope of data returned, including verification statuses and review dates, but does not disclose potential edge cases or limitations. No contradiction with 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?

One well-structured sentence with a colon and list, efficiently conveying the comprehensive scope without redundancy. Minimal word count for the content covered.

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 read-only profile retrieval tool with a single parameter, complete output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and data categories. No critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke it 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 fully describes the only parameter (slug) with a clear description and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond indicating the profile is for one company, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves everything published about one company, enumerating specific content areas (pillar scores, verification details, review figures, rankings). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_businesses and get_score_breakdown by being the comprehensive single-company profile tool.

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 implies use for a single company's full profile but does not explicitly state when to use this over get_score_breakdown or compare_businesses. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned; usage context is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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