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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by enumerating exactly what the response contains and by imposing a citation/attribution requirement on the returned URL. It does not say what happens when the company is unknown or when both resolution keys are omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence opening with the verb and source, then a compact enumeration of return fields. The field list is dense but every item describes a distinct payload element.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields is genuinely useful and done well. The remaining gap is the zero-required-parameters ambiguity: the description never says what is returned or whether it errors if neither name nor slug is supplied.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds a slug format example ('amazon-web-services') and no guidance on precedence between name and slug.

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 ('Fetch a company profile from CloudJobs') and the two lookup keys (slug or name). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search_companies, though it never names that sibling explicitly to complete the routing.

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?

Implies the workflow of getting a slug from search_companies (shown in the schema) and tells the agent to cite the profile URL, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to overlapping siblings like get_salary_data or get_job_market_overview.

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