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

Goes well beyond the annotations: requires an account, describes a two-step token/publication flow that explains the non-idempotent, write-ish nature, lists refusal cases (public mail domains, lookalikes, sanctions lists), and states the payoff (domain display, check mark, recruiter-visible data, highest limits). That is substantial context an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true alone.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the goal and the branch conditions; nearly every clause carries information. Slightly crammed with benefit details (check mark, recruiter visibility, limits) that could be trimmed, but nothing is truly wasted.

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, the description should signal what comes back; it implies a token on the first call and a verified state after the second, which is adequate. It stops short of enumerating the response fields, a minor gap for a multi-step flow.

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 already documents `domain` at 100% coverage, but the description adds real semantics: the domain must be a genuine company domain because public mail domains and lookalike domains are refused. That constrains inputs in a way the schema does not.

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+resource (prove/verify that an agent writes for a company) and defines what "verified" concretely means. It is distinguishable from lookup siblings like get_company or resolve_company, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (an Alion account is needed) and spells out the two branches of usage: instant verification if the company was claimed with a work email, otherwise the well-known file dance with a re-call. No explicit 'when not to use' or sibling routing, which is the only gap.

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