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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a point-in-time measurement, that it is timestamped and hashed, and that it returns a read-style snapshot of multiple data categories. This goes beyond a bare 'Retrieve' claim and gives the agent meaningful expectations about the data's temporal nature.

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?

The description is compact: one opening sentence defining scope and contents, one sentence establishing temporal/hash behavior, and one usage sentence. Every sentence adds value and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the main return categories and clarifies that this is the latest observed state. It does not detail exact field structures or error/rate-limit behavior, but those are not essential for this simple parameter surface.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with an example. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('company's latest full observed state') and enumerates exactly what is included: HTTP status/headers, technologies with evidence and confidence, scripts, and DNS records. This clearly distinguishes it from summary or historical sibling tools like revnuvo_get_company_changes and revnuvo_get_company_technologies.

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 description provides clear context: use it when the complete current picture is needed rather than a summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'rather than a summary' contrast and point-in-time framing give adequate situational guidance.

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