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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral quirk: the tech stack is only a small preview unless the company is starred, with techStackCount giving the true total. It also notes no account is required and points to get_account for the star budget, adding real operational context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and slug first, then the star/preview caveat and checkTechStack contract. Every sentence carries information, though the tech-stack explanation runs long enough to border on verbose.

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 and readOnly annotations, the description carries the burden well by enumerating return contents (description, perks, job count, URLs) and the matchedTechStack/preview behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the results.

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% and the schema already documents both params, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: checkTechStack is verified against the FULL (starred) stack, not the preview, matched entries surface in matchedTechStack, lead the preview, and follow the same contract as search_listings. That is genuine added value over the field text.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (company listing) and pins the lookup key to the slug. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming search_listings and by framing its role as pre-star review, distinct from star_listing.

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?

"Use this to review a company before deciding whether to star it" gives clear context, and the checkTechStack guidance tells the agent when to pass technologies. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternative-routing statement (e.g., vs search_listings for bulk discovery), so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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