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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: unstarred companies show only a preview stack, starring unlocks the full stack, techStackCount reflects the true total, and checkTechStack verifies against the full stack. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand preview versus full data semantics.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, account requirement, return contents, tech-stack preview caveat, parameter behavior, and a pairing recommendation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the key exception, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned data, the preview/full-stack distinction, the matchedTechStack contract, and the recommended pairing with get_account. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly or interpret its result 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics: slug maps to a single company, and checkTechStack is explained as verifying overlap against the FULL stack with matched results returned in matchedTechStack. The concrete '3-tag preview of 147' example makes the parameter's effect tangible.

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 the specific action ('Get detailed information about a specific company listing by its slug') and the resource, and ties it to a clear use case ('review a company before deciding whether to star it'). This distinguishes it from list/search siblings by emphasizing the single-listing slug-based operation.

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 gives clear context: works without an account, use before starring, and 'Pair with get_account to check budget before starring.' It does not explicitly name an alternative like search_listings as the tool to use for browsing many listings, but 'specific company listing by its slug' strongly implies the boundary.

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