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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: free-tier quotas (3 per IP per UTC day, shared pool 50, 100 global), paid upgrade links, x402 payment via Apify, and Bearer token billing with TidyTools credits. It does not describe the structure or fields of the returned company facts, so a small gap remains.

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 purpose, then covers scope, payment, auth, and rate limits in compact sentences. The payment and quota details are dense but relevant; nothing is clearly redundant, though the billing explanation could be tightened.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, auth, billing, and free-tier limits adequately. It could be more complete by indicating what 'public company facts' includes or what a limited free result omits, but no critical calling information is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as 'One public HTTP(S) URL.' The description reinforces the single-URL constraint but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: returns public company facts from one website. The single-URL scope clearly separates it from batch-style siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'company_enrich_ai', leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for one url' and excludes 'batch work or unrestricted monitoring', giving clear when/when-not guidance. It stops short of naming the preferred alternative for batch or AI-specific enrichment, so it is not a full 5.

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