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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope (companies in Fortune rankings), but omits pagination behavior, filter combination semantics, or result limits. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by usage guidance, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter search tool with no schema descriptions, the description omits any explanation of the filtering parameters (country, industry, revenue, employees) or pagination. While an output schema exists, the input side is underspecified for effective agent use.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only hints at 'search' (company name or query) and 'ranking' (Fortune rankings). It leaves page, year, country, industry, max/min revenue, and max/min employees completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Fortune’s public company directory'), and scopes it to companies featured in Fortune rankings. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling fortune_company by instructing to use this search before requesting a profile.

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 explicitly says to use it to find a company listing before requesting its profile, giving clear context and an implied alternative (fortune_company). However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to fortune_company_filters or fortune_ranking tools.

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