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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds operational traits the annotations cannot convey: ~8-10 second latency, 3-credit cost, and free billing on misses/errors/no-evidence. It also previews output shape (strength, date, source hint, intent score). Not a full 5 only because it doesn't describe depth/freshness limits of the underlying sources.

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-loads what the tool returns, then how to call it, then the exclusion, then cost/latency. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or name.

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 and zero required parameters, the description compensates by describing the payload fields (strength, date, source hint, intent score), both optional input modes, latency and credit economics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds relationship semantics the schema does not: content is an alternative to domain rather than a supplement ('instead of a domain'), and signal_types is a filter. This is meaningful guidance on how the params interact even though syntax is schema-documented.

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 (detects) and resource (recent business signals) and enumerates exactly what those signals are: funding, expansion, hiring surges, tech adoption, leadership changes. It also names the sibling it is not (apione_hiring), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 explicit use context ('decide when and why to contact a company'), two concrete invocation paths (domain for live research, content for article text), and a negative exclusion pointing to apione_hiring for open roles. When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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