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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description supplements this by revealing that the response includes the startup.jobs URL and live listing count, which is not present in annotations and adds useful behavioral context.

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, tightly-constructed sentence that front-loads the action and includes both the endpoint and key response details. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming the included fields, making the description complete for this complexity level.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a meaningful description ('Company slug, as returned in job payloads'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 clearly states the action 'Fetch a company profile by slug' and goes beyond by listing specific return contents (startup.jobs URL and live listing count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_jobs and get_job.

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 phrase 'by slug, as returned in job payloads' gives concrete context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and aids in selecting this tool over others.

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