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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the input-must-be-non-ambiguous constraint and the 404 'no match' body on failure. It doesn't touch auth or rate limits, but it exceeds what the annotation provides.

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-loaded with the purpose, then input requirement, return shape, and endpoint in a tight sequence. No filler; every sentence 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 readOnly annotations covering safety, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the return payload (firmographics) and the failure mode (404). Only minor gaps remain around pagination/field selection, which don't affect 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that name OR website OR ticker OR profile are the identifying inputs and that website/ticker/profile resolve more reliably than name. That reliability ranking is not in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find the single best-matching company record' with firmographics as the payload. This distinguishes it from a broad search, though it doesn't name any sibling tool explicitly. Purpose 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?

It states an input requirement (non-ambiguous input from name/website/ticker/profile) and a resolution-reliability ordering, which is implied guidance on how to invoke correctly. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs pdl_company_search or pdl_person_enrich' routing, so usage context is only implied.

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