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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing that robots.txt is obeyed, that one enrichment credit is charged only when the site publishes a contact method, and that it runs at most once per company per day. This adds valuable operational context about cost and rate limiting.

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 three tightly written sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and return values, then appends the robots.txt and credit/rate-limit constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields: contact emails, phone number, social profiles, and tech stack. Combined with the annotation coverage for safety and openness, and the complete schema for the sole parameter, the description provides everything an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is fully described in the schema, including that a full URL is accepted and reduced to its domain. The description adds no additional meaning about the domain parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (a company's own website) and enumerates what it returns: contact emails, phone number, social profiles, and tech stack. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like enrich_lead or discover_companies, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage by saying 'Read a company's own website now' and describes the cost/rate-limit model, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enrich_lead or search_verified_leads. There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions either, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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