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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses public web sources, produces cited sources and a confidence score, and covers risk flags. It doesn't mention rate limits or latency, but for a read-only research tool with strong annotations, the added context is solid.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a use-case clause. It front-loads the core purpose and content areas before the usage guidance. It earns its length by covering scope, output characteristics, and usage context without redundancy, though it is slightly long.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it produces (cited sources, confidence score). It doesn't mention that the company parameter is required or that depth has a default, but the schema handles that. For a read-only research tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain individual parameters, but it names the content areas that map to focusAreas enum values (overview, products, leadership, funding, competitors, technology, recent_news, market_position, risks). The description's mention of 'overview, products, leadership, funding, competitors, technology signals, recent developments and risk flags' directly mirrors the focusAreas enum, giving agents a semantic anchor. However, it doesn't clarify depth, country, or website parameters, so it's not a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Research') and resource ('a company from public web sources'), and enumerates the content areas covered (overview, products, leadership, funding, competitors, technology signals, recent developments, risk flags) plus cited sources and a confidence score. It clearly distinguishes itself from a structured company registry, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_oman_company_profile or find_companies.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an agent needs a structured research brief on a named company' and lists use cases: sales/investment/partnership research, competitive analysis, or general company background. It also states when NOT to use it: 'beyond what a structured company registry alone provides,' which routes agents away from registry-style siblings.

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