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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the result is a paywall-aware summary, not the full 30-page report, and that the full report and analyst-debate audio are accessible via a returned URL. This provides useful context about output limitations and an action the user can take. It does not mention error conditions or auth requirements, but the core behavior is well described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. It lists report components and the key behavioral nuance (paywall-aware summary) without unnecessary filler. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides a thorough understanding of the return value by enumerating the report sections (executive summary, Cyborg Score, strategic profile, etc.) and the included URL for the full report. Given the tool's single parameter and moderate complexity, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers the only parameter 'company' with a detailed description including examples and accepted forms. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description's mention of company focus is implicit in the report nature rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'AskCyborg's structured research report for a single company.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like compare_companies and get_cyborg_score by stating it is a comprehensive report for one company, listing included sections.

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 when to use this tool: when a detailed, single-company research report is needed. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single company and mentioning the full report vs. the summary. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for comparison or specific insights, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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