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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it is a teaser and does not return a full dossier, which sets expectations about the depth of output. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or the nature of the returned data beyond 'teaser'. This is a moderate disclosure, sufficient for a simple free preview tool but not exhaustive.

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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose and limitation front-loaded in the first sentence and the upgrade options in the second. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with a single parameter.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns a teaser, not a full dossier, and mentions two upgrade paths. It does not explain the output format or list specific fields, but that may be acceptable for a free teaser. It also omits mention of other sibling tools that could be alternatives, but the two named are the most relevant upgrades. Overall, it is fairly complete for its simplicity.

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 only defines 'entity' as a string with no description, and parameter description coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by stating the tool is 'for a company/domain', clarifying that the entity parameter refers to a company name or domain. This adds meaning, but it does not specify acceptable formats (e.g., full name, URL) or whether it is required (schema says 0 required). It provides some value beyond the bare schema but not comprehensive.

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 'FREE teaser for a company/domain' and explicitly notes that it does not return a full dossier, clearly indicating it provides a preview. It also names specific sibling tools (lion_company_research, lion_verified_company_file) to differentiate its limited scope from fuller alternatives. This makes the purpose clear, though it lacks a direct verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 says 'Upgrade: lion_company_research ($0.03) or lion_verified_company_file ($0.95)', which implies this tool is for a free, quick look and provides explicit alternatives for users needing more detail. It does not formally state 'use when you only need a teaser', but the pricing and 'teaser' language make the usage context clear. It does not mention other siblings like lion_company_enrich or lion_wallet_screen, but the two named suffice for common upgrade paths.

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