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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses pricing ($0.03 USDC), the x402 PaymentRequired failure path for unpaid calls, that payment settles before execution, refusal of private-person dossiers, public-pages-only scope, and a no-invented-citations guarantee. These are behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 purpose and output shape, followed by scope, exclusions, price, and payment mechanics in a logical order. It is dense and slightly overlong, but nearly every clause (payment failure path, refusal policy) carries actionable 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what is returned (name, what the company does, offerings, HQ, size, 3-5 source URLs, confidence), the conditional honesty rule ('only when a retrieved page states them'), cost, and the unpaid-call failure mode. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% with a single well-documented 'website' parameter, so the baseline is already high. The description adds that it must be a public company site and that only the company's own pages are searched, which clarifies intent beyond the schema's example URL.

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 ('Create a ... company snapshot from a public company website') and enumerates the fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the full company intelligence report, a named sibling, so an agent can route correctly.

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 scopes usage ('For cheap agent lookups and first-pass screening'), states exclusions ('Not a substitute for the full company intelligence report and not for high-stakes automated decisions'), and names the preferred alternative for deeper work. When-to-use and when-not are both present.

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