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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it adds that it wraps nexgendata/company-data-aggregator, lists sources (homepage, /about, etc.), and notes the funding scrape is free-tier Crunchbase. No contradictions. Could mention return format but acceptable.

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?

Efficient at ~80 words: first line states purpose, then sources, wrapper, use-case, then args. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers what the tool does, sources, fields, and params. Lacks explicit mention of return format, but given no output schema and readOnly nature, it's a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining name_or_domain as company name or domain (with example) and include_funding as Crunchbase + news lookup, adding significant value beyond raw 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?

The description clearly states it builds a full company profile by aggregating multiple sources, lists covered fields (industry, HQ, founded date, etc.), and positions itself as 'the richest of the company-research tools,' distinguishing it from siblings like enrich_company or detect_tech_stack.

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?

Explicitly says 'use this when you want one record covering ...' providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or directly compare with simpler alternatives, slightly reducing explicit guidance.

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