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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds the critical security warning that scraped web content is untrusted and never instructions, and it discloses the dual effect of updating both the stored company and the CRM record. This goes beyond structured annotations.

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 sentences: the first states the core action, the second the effect, and the third the critical safety rule. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main side effects and safety constraints. It could explicitly mention that the company must already exist (since it only updates), but that's inferable from 'updates the stored company' and the required prospect_company_id. Overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds general guidance ('Pass facts only') but does not offer per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters or provide format examples, though the caution about untrusted data does indirectly inform web_research.

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 a specific action (persist verified company research), the resource (stored company and CRM company record), and the source (search_web/scrape_website). This distinguishes it from other update tools like update_contact or update_crm_lead.

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?

The description implies when to use it—after gathering research with search_web/scrape_website—and cautions to pass only facts. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is strong and the 'verified' qualifier signals that it's for post-web-research persistence, not for creating companies.

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