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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: which fields are always public versus which require FirmLedger Pro (website, email, phone, key people, timeline, technology), letting an agent anticipate absent fields.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a field enumeration. The list is dense but every clause maps to real returned content; it could be trimmed slightly but nothing is padded or repetitive.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly, including the plan-dependent split. The one remaining gap is error behavior for an unresolvable or ambiguous identifier, which the description never addresses.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the accepted identifier forms (slug, exact name, FL-00012 ID, profile URL). The description adds nothing about the listing argument, so the 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+resource: fetches the public FirmLedger profile of one company, with an enumerated field list (verification state, scores, news, jobs). The phrase 'of one company' implicitly distinguishes it from search_listings, but no sibling is named in the description itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent must infer that this is the lookup step after search_listings returns a slug, and nothing routes it away from close siblings like get_lead, get_my_listings, or compare_listings.

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