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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: revenue-only records with null catalog slug and profile URL whose ID is still usable, alias/spelling-dependent matching, ambiguous names yielding multiple matches, and a clarification_required outcome for verification-style queries. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct, non-redundant information. The final sentence about generic verification queries is densely compressed and slightly hard to parse, and pagination/continuation is never surfaced despite being mentioned in the limit schema.

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 format needn't be spelled out, yet the description still flags the nullable-slug/profile-URL case and the clarification_required response — useful context. What's missing is how to resume a paged search and any hint about result ordering or ranking.

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 50%: limit is fully documented in-schema while query has only minLength/maxLength constraints. The description adds meaningful query semantics (matching depends on spelling and available aliases, ambiguous names produce multiple matches) but never states what a valid query should contain or how to continue paging, which the description leaves to the limit field's schema text.

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 and resource: 'Resolves a named AI company to stable IDs, names and descriptions.' It also explicitly separates itself from category-leaderboard siblings ('searches company identities rather than category leaderboards'), so an agent can route without opening schemas. Multiple-match behavior on ambiguous names confirms it is a search, not a single-record fetch.

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?

Gives clear use conditions and one explicit exclusion (identity search vs. leaderboards), plus a when-not case: generic verification queries return no rows and trigger clarification_required. It does not name specific siblings like get_company or get_company_leaderboard, though 'returned ID remains usable for company lookup' implies the handoff.

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