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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the price ($1.00) and the vague term 'deep dive,' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. This is minimal guidance.

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 listing the key content areas plus the cost. Every piece of information is useful and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, but it lacks any indication of the return format or result structure. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools or note any constraints. Since there is no output schema, more context would be expected.

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 fully describes the sole parameter 'target' as 'Company name or domain to research,' providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it is a company intelligence deep dive covering tech stack, funding, team, competitors, and news. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like intel_competitive and intel_market by explicitly listing company-specific dimensions. The purpose is specific and action-oriented.

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 use for in-depth company research but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like intel_competitive, intel_market, or detect_tech. It does not mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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