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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, closed-world lookup. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: matching is case- and separator-insensitive, unknown groups fall back to listing available groups, and the full set of available group names is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core resolve action comes first, followed by matching behavior, fallback behavior, and the available values. Every sentence contributes operational information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return value, the fallback behavior, case/separator insensitivity, and all available group names. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without further context.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds usable semantics beyond the schema by enumerating all available group names and clarifying the unknown-group fallback. It does not add new syntax detail, so it is slightly above baseline rather than fully exhaustive.

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 a specific verb and resource: resolve a named company group into company slugs. It also names the downstream use case, the benchmark tools' companySlugs filter, which makes the tool's role distinct from sibling search/get tools.

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?

It explicitly says to omit the group parameter or pass an unknown group to list available groups, and explains that the result is intended for the benchmark tools' companySlugs filter. This gives clear when-to-use and practical routing guidance.

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