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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action ('Find companies') without revealing any operational details such as whether results are limited by country, whether it returns a list, or if any authentication is needed. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the key action and target. It is maximally concise with no filler words, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 and no annotations, the description is expected to provide more context about what the tool returns or how it behaves. It only states the purpose, omitting any mention of the response format, limitations, or additional behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 of all three parameters with descriptions (limit, country, industry), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond echoing the 'industry' concept, but it doesn't need to since the schema is complete.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('companies') scoped by 'industry or sector'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'company_lookup' which likely provides broader company search functionality.

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 description implies the tool is for finding companies by industry or sector, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'startup_search' or 'company_lookup', nor does it state when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied via the phrase 'specific industry', but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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