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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world. The description adds non-obvious epistemic rules (missing headcount/SEO is unknown, never a fabricated growth trend) and a cost condition ($0.10 USDC only when a useful assessment is returned), which materially affect how an agent should interpret and budget for the call.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose/usage front-loaded, then caveat, then pricing. No filler; each sentence carries information an agent 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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage context, data reliability caveat, and payment condition, leaving little else an agent needs to invoke it correctly, though it could clarify the assessment's scope relative to sibling tools.

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 the single vendor_domain parameter is fully specified in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 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?

Names a specific action (inspect) and two evidence sources (public vendor technology, current hiring evidence) with procurement context. However, it never explicitly states it evaluates vendor stability nor differentiates from single-signal siblings like detect_website_tech_stack or get_company_hiring_intent.

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 use it 'before procurement,' giving clear context. No when-not conditions or alternative tools are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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