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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It does add some behavioral context by listing the types of data returned, but it omits caveats such as partial results when a domain isn't found, data freshness, or the fact that social profiles may not always be present. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the input key, and the result fields without any filler. It earns its place and wastes no tokens.

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?

Given that this is a one-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and open-world annotation, the description is largely complete: it identifies what to pass, what kind of data to expect, and that results are not constrained to a closed list. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this tool over the many sibling enrichment/search tools.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage: it documents the domain parameter, its pattern, and a concrete example ('stripe.com'). The description only repeats that the lookup is by domain and contributes no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('company data'), and the lookup key ('by domain'), and enumerates the data categories returned (industry, size, location, social profiles). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like companies_search or combined_enrichment, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'by domain' implies the input condition for using the tool, and the surrounding context suggests you should call it when you have a company domain and need enrichment data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named, leaving selection among the many enrichment siblings to inference.

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