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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('as text with its moatshark url'), which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about record contents, error behavior, or size of the payload.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the id examples; nothing is redundant. It reads as a sentence fragment, but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so only loosely ('full record ... as text with its moatshark url'). Combined with the unexplained overlap with get_company/get_manager, an agent still has open questions before calling it.

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 param is documented, so the baseline is already met. The description goes further by showing the id syntax with two real examples ('manager:berkshire-hathaway', 'company:ko'), which the schema's generic 'An id from search results' does not convey.

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?

Names the resource ('the full record for one id') and its origin ('from search'), with concrete id examples that make the shape of the input obvious. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings get_company and get_manager, which appear to retrieve similar entity records.

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?

'one id from search' implies the intended workflow (search first, then fetch by id), so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_company/get_manager, and no statement about what happens with an unknown id.

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