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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the 1-credit cost and, crucially, that the result is NOT persisted — the single most important behavioral fact for this tool. It leaves auth/permission requirements and failure behavior (e.g. unreachable website) unstated, so not quite a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence pair with the core action and the non-persistence warning front-loaded and the follow-up routing last. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value's nature (draft text, unsaved) and the required next step, which is the key gap it needed to close. Minor omissions remain around output length/format guarantees and what happens when the website cannot be read.

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 100%, so id, company_name, company_website and target_language are already documented in the schema; the description adds only the general notion of sourcing from the website. It does not clarify the defaulting behavior or language semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource ('AI-write what the agent knows about the company from its website') plus a scope qualifier ('no full scan') that separates it from the heavier scanning siblings like scan_agent_website or deep_scan_agent. An agent knows exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent what to do next — pass the returned text to set_agent_company (company_description) — which pins down the workflow position. It implies the light-touch alternative to a full scan via '(no full scan)' but never names when to prefer scan_agent_website or deep_scan_agent instead, so exclusions are only inferred.

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