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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of semantic context ('what Arclera Digital does') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states the core behavior and then the relevant use case. It contains no filler or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why it is useful, and when to reach for it. Sibling names provide additional context, and no output schema is necessary given the trivial input and straightforward return.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to provide. The schema description coverage is effectively 100%, and the description correctly focuses on the purpose of the tool. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('what Arclera Digital does'), making it clear this is about the company's services. It also adds a concrete use case: judging whether work is in scope. The sibling tools (get_company, get_contact) suggest this tool is distinct from company/contact info.

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 states exactly when this tool is relevant: 'when judging whether a piece of work is in scope.' This gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the siblings are reasonably differentiated by name.

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