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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only query, how results are ordered, pagination behavior, or rate limits. Only the schema's limit range hints at result caps, which the description does not reinforce.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the primary claim, though the terse phrasing leaves no room for the behavioral context a no-annotation tool needs.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-shape and safety information, and it supplies neither. For a discovery tool with a required trigger parameter, an agent still cannot tell what a result contains or how results are ranked.

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 100% and each trigger enum value is self-describing, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the trigger taxonomy (e.g., what 'cash_rich' or 'deteriorating' actually key on) beyond what the enum already conveys, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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+resource ('Find companies') and the discriminating scope ('matching specific financial triggers'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like search_companies or lookup_company. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'useful for B2B lead generation' implies the intended scenario but never states when to prefer this over search_companies/compare_companies or what the trigger-based search cannot do. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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