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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-lookup scope are covered. The description adds that a name may resolve to nothing ('or none'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about ambiguity handling, confidence, or batch-failure semantics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the fallback outcome and illustrative examples packed in without waste. Nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present and only one parameter, the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose and input expectations well; the only gap is guidance on ambiguous or partially matched batches, which matters given up to 50 names per call.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Employers, as stated' by showing the tolerated forms — legal suffixes ('Google India Pvt Ltd') and prefixes ('ex-Amazon'). That meaningfully clarifies what the names array should contain.

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 (match) and resource (employers) and clarifies the output unit: 'a company key each, or none.' The examples of messy real-world strings make the intent concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling find_company, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by 'as profiles state them' — i.e., use this when you have raw free-text employer strings rather than a known company identifier. No explicit when-not condition or named alternative (find_company, company_profile) is given, leaving the routing to inference.

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