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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the return shape {platform, token, via} and that the call is free, but it omits failure modes (unknown company, ambiguous platform), rate limits, and what 'via' actually signifies.

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?

Two short sentences: capability and input forms first, then the return shape and cost. Nothing is redundant and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the free-tier detail an agent needs to sequence it before paid enrichment. Only the unresolved-company behavior and the meaning of 'token'/'via' are 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 100% and the single parameter is documented with matching examples ('bunq' / 'bunq.com'), so the description's 'bare slug or domain' mostly restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no extra syntax or normalization rules are added.

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: resolve which applicant-tracking system a company uses and its board token, plus the accepted input forms. It is clearly distinct from search_jobs and list_platforms, but it never mentions how it differs from enrich_preview or get_premium_access, which could plausibly overlap on company lookups.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'from a bare slug or domain' tells you what to feed it, and 'Free' hints at a cost distinction against get_premium_access. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over enrich_preview, nor what happens when resolution fails or returns nothing.

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