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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, but the description adds real context: dimensions default to all, each collection paginates independently with the same limit/offset, missing catalog records may still carry ranking or revenue data, and soc2Disclosure values are vendor claims not certifications. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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-loads the core verb and resource, then layers dimension and pagination details efficiently in five short sentences. The soc2Disclosure sentence is dense and slightly cryptic but carries non-redundant meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described; the description covers dimension selection, default behavior, pagination, and a subtle data-integrity caveat. Complete enough for correct invocation, with only sibling routing left implicit.

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 75% and the schema has no description for the dimensions array, so the description earns credit by enumerating the available dimensions and stating the default-to-all behavior. It also restates the shared limit/offset pagination model, though it adds little beyond the schema's own limit/offset descriptions.

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 (Returns) and resource (public data for an exact company ID or slug), and the word 'exact' implicitly distinguishes it from the search_* siblings. It does not name the sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Exact company ID or slug' implies you must already know the identifier and therefore should resolve names elsewhere, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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