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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value is in disclosing what the result contains: recent events with their sources, plus rep-side matches such as service fit, closest past project, requested certification, and the angle when the company resembles existing clients. The explicit 'returns the facts, not the lines' caveat usefully sets expectations. It stops short of describing output shape or depth per fact when no output schema exists.

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 core purpose and the key caveat are front-loaded, but the body is a single long run-on sentence with a nested list that is hard to parse. It is dense with real content rather than filler, yet could be split into a purpose sentence and a returned-facts sentence without loss.

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 does the work of explaining return content by enumerating the fact categories and their sourcing. Combined with annotations covering safety, the main remaining gap is the missing identifier semantics for the required 'company' parameter rather than anything about the result.

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 only 50%, and the undocumented parameter is the required one: 'company' has no description in either the schema or the description, so the agent gets no guidance on whether it expects a legal name, a domain, or an internal ID. The optional 'website' is described only in the schema and is not addressed in the description, so nothing compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource and aim: the facts needed to write an opening line for one company, enumerated concretely (trial, hire, FDA decision, funding, news) plus rep-fit signals. It also draws a boundary that separates it from line-generating tools ('Returns the facts, not the lines'), though it never names a sibling such as company or news directly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumeration of fact categories; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus siblings like company, account, news, or find, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the intent but must guess at the routing decision.

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