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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: homepage-only scope, the fetched:false marker on fetch failure, and a precise billing model (4 credits per call, free on misses, errors, and answers without live evidence). It does not describe the return structure, but the billing and failure semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Sentences are ordered by importance: purpose and scope first, then the exclusion and alternative, then cost. Every clause carries operational information with no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope limits, failure behavior, pricing, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage (domain, with an example). The description reinforces that it must be a public homepage domain but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (detects) and resource (technologies on a company's public homepage) and enumerates the categories covered (CRM, analytics, infrastructure, frameworks, marketing, e-commerce). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling enrichment tools.

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 positive usage ('Use for technographic targeting') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Not for company facts (use apione_company_enrich)'), plus a scoping caveat that only the homepage is read, so back-end tools are invisible.

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