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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Grounded, cited answer' hints that the output includes citations and is sourced, but it omits how sources are selected, whether external web access is involved, failure behavior, or output shape. This is more informative than a tautology but still largely under-discloses.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 likely complex research tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain how to specify the company, what form the answer takes, citation format, or how it differs from sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not mention 'domain' or 'question' at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning or expected format/value constraints are added.

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 the resource ('a company') and output type ('grounded, cited answer'), but it is a noun phrase rather than a specific verb. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_company or get_profile, which also concern company information.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose research_company over siblings such as get_company or compare_companies. The phrase 'grounded, cited answer' implies a research-oriented use, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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