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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that the write touches two records, not just the company, and warns that third-party web content is untrusted data rather than instructions. It omits failure behavior when prospect_company_id is unknown.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scope, then the safety constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 two-target mutation with complete parameter docs and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and injection handling. It could say more about what happens on an unmatched prospect_company_id, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the 8000-character limit. The description only adds a general 'pass facts only' constraint for web_research, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (persist/update) plus resource (company research, stored company and its CRM company record), and it ties the input to search_web. It implies a distinction from update_crm_company by naming the dual write scope, but never contrasts the two explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives clear context: use this to persist research already gathered via search_web. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus update_crm_company or log_crm_note), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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