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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: only PUBLISHED companies are returned for the public, owners can see their own non-published companies, and a not-found result returns found=false. This gives the agent a clear behavioral contract even without an output schema.

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 compact and well-structured: core function first, then when-to-use guidance, then a resource link. Each section earns its place and adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the lookup mechanism, visibility rules, owner exception, and not-found behavior. With no output schema, the found=false note helps fill the return-value gap. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 slug parameter already has a description ('公司主页 slug（URL 上 /c/<slug>）'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that lookup is by slug, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('按 slug 获取某个一人公司主页') and clarifies the public/owner visibility distinction. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_my_company and list_companies by scoping to a single company by slug with PUBLISHED-only behavior.

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 '【何时用】' section gives clear context: use it when the user wants to see what a specific one-person company does. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the visibility rules ('仅返回已发布 PUBLISHED 的公司；本人 owner 可见自己任意状态的公司') imply when it applies and when it might not.

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