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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: no indication of how results are scored/ranked, latency, or result-count semantics tied to the limit parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is also the source of the gaps elsewhere.

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 thin parameter documentation, the description should carry more of the burden. It does not say what a result contains, how many companies are returned, or what the detail levels change, leaving an agent under-informed for a 3-parameter screening tool.

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 only 33% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The limit range (1-40) and the detail enum's effect on output (essential/standard/full) are left entirely to the schema, and the description never explains how the plain-language query is interpreted.

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 ('Find') and resource ('public companies') with the scoping notion of thematic exposure. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_events or identify_stakeholders, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 phrase 'described in plain language' hints at the expected input style, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus the many alert/event/entity siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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