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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing data provenance (Wikidata, Companies House, Open Government Licence), the exact content returned, and the US-visa-filings extension. It stops short of noting rate limits, freshness, or failure modes when a company is not found.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and example queries, then a dense enumeration of returned fields. It is longer than minimal but each clause earns its place by describing scope, sources, and exclusions; only the trailing US-visa sentence feels slightly appended.

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 must convey return values, and it does so thoroughly (company profile, founding, staff numbers, HQ, website, UK company records, current open jobs with examples, US visa filings). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the two parameters are self-documented (name with examples, where for narrowing jobs), so the baseline 3 applies. The description hints at job narrowing via 'how many jobs it has open now' but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema.

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 resource (employer + hiring facts) via a clear lookup verb, and anchors it with concrete example queries ('tell me about Monzo as an employer'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it does not cover ('Staff reviews are not included') and by scoping to company-level facts rather than the people/job-specific siblings.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases that map directly to user intents, and adds a negative boundary ('staff reviews are not included'). It does not name alternative sibling tools, so routing is implied rather than spelled out, but the context is clear enough to select it confidently.

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