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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses price ($0.03), the conditional billing rule (charged only when at least two of four sections have data), the free-tier consumption (one of 5 daily calls), parallel execution, and the estimation caveat on growth signals. That's exactly the kind of cost and output-reliability context an agent can't infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and output list, and every sentence adds routing, pricing, or caveat value. It is dense — pricing, quota, and caveat details are packed into a single long span — but little could be cut without losing decision-relevant information.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return shapes; instead it covers cost model, quota impact, estimation disclaimers, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the domain format and the optional context field; the description only implies the domain input without adding format or validation detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('One-call company profile for a domain') and enumerates exactly what it returns (tech stack, hiring intent, Google Ads, published contacts). It also names the narrower siblings it supersedes, so it's unmistakable in the toolset.

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?

Explicitly says to start here for a single company across all four signals, then routes to single-signal tools for narrower research, batch_lookup for several known domains, and company_footprint_check for found/not_found only. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named alternatives.

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