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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses side effects including storing facts on the agent, creating/updating company and people records, and filling only blank contact channels without overwriting manual ones. It still leaves out permissions, error behavior, and whether non-contact fields are overwritten.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then the key exclusion and cost note. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a mutation tool with 9 nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers high-level purpose and important side effects but leaves significant gaps in parameter semantics and return behavior. It is adequate as a summary but not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.

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 22% across 9 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but only partially does. It names broad data categories but omits required fields like id, company_name, and company_website, and does not clarify nested contacts, directors, or auto_update structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: save company facts (team, contacts, social links, pricing, employee count, auto re-scan) onto the agent. It also distinguishes the operation from deep_scan_agent by noting it is not needed when persist=true, giving an agent enough to identify the tool's role.

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 gives clear context ('what the app does after a scan') and one explicit exclusion ('Not needed after deep_scan_agent with persist=true'). However, it does not name other relevant alternatives such as scan_agent_website or set_agent_company, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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