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

Despite the annotations already marking this as a safe, idempotent read, the description adds substantial behavioral context: what the rundown includes, how uncovered companies are handled, and how ambiguous names return `say_now` asking for a website. This goes well beyond the annotation surface.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded, the return contents are compactly enumerated, and the fallback behavior closes the paragraph. No sentence is filler; each adds either selection guidance or behavioral expectation.

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 must explain what comes back, and it does: coverage rationale, product, stage, location, FDA facilities, event history with dates and sources, and rep status. It also handles uncovered and ambiguous companies, making the definition complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `company`, `website`, and `events`. The description reinforces the `company` and `website` workflow but adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, and it does not mention the `events` parameter or its default/limit.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it produces a rundown on one named US medical device company, including coverage status, products, stage, facilities, events, and rep status. It is clear enough to select, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as `account` or `deep_record`.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: user asks 'tell me about' or 'what do we know about' a named US device company. It also covers when-not scenarios (foreign importer, drug company) and the ambiguous-name fallback, telling the agent to call again with `website`.

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