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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately lists the content sections that will be returned, so an agent knows what to expect. However, it does not mention any potential caveats like response size, data coverage, or whether the tool aggregates data from multiple sources, leaving some uncertainty about the actual behavior.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main point ('EVERYTHING on a private company in ONE call') and then uses a colon to list components. It is concise and effectively structured, though slightly wordy with the em-dash and repeated 'full', but every part contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good high-level overview of the response contents but lacks detail on parameter semantics and limitations. It tells the agent what to expect in the payload but not how to control or interpret the optional parameters, which is a notable gap for a tool this comprehensive.

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 only 17% (only company_id is described). The description does not explain the meanings of 'deals', 'peers', 'blocks', 'fields', or 'investors'. While some parameters can be inferred from the listed content (e.g., peers for similar companies), 'blocks' and 'fields' remain opaque, and the description's promise of 'full history' conflicts with the existence of a capped 'deals' parameter.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'EVERYTHING on a private company in ONE call' and enumerates the included components (full profile, financials, financing history, deal history, investors, competitors, similar companies, board/team). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_deals or company_investors, which cover only specific slices.

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 establishes a clear use case: when you need the complete detail-page payload for a private company, use this instead of making multiple calls to separate private markets tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'in ONE call' phrasing strongly implies the intended usage.

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