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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds live-data freshness, 'Not-found is free upstream,' the 10-credit cost, and automatic slug-to-id resolution with no extra credit, all of which are behaviors the annotations do not express.

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?

Five short sentences with no filler; the opening word 'Freshest' front-loads the core value. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: returned data, input routing, cost, and not-found behavior.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description covers invocation choice, credit cost, and behavior on miss. There is enough information for an agent to select and call this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that slug-to-id resolution is free, that id can come from companies_entity_id to skip the lookup, and that various identifier forms are accepted; this goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opens with 'Freshest LIVE company profile' and names three concrete data returns (funding signals, full location list, parent/affiliated/related pages), explicitly contrasting with 'the dataset record behind companies_info.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the closely related companies_info sibling.

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?

It frames usage around what companies_info lacks, implying use this tool when live funding, full locations, or page relations are needed. It also explains the id-vs-slug input choice. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' formula, but the companies_info comparison provides solid routing context.

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