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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned content, which is useful, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or behavior when a slug fails to resolve.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the resource name comes first and the content list follows. It is efficient, though the telegraphic fragment style leaves it slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the one required parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a low-complexity single-parameter lookup the description is sufficient, missing only sibling routing guidance.

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% and the slug property description already explains the /company/{slug} path form and server-side loose matching. The description adds no syntax, format, or fallback detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Names a specific resource ('ImportYeti company report') and enumerates the content it covers: identity, shipment-volume metrics, suppliers, bill-of-lading activity. It is clearly distinguishable from importyeti_search by naming a single company entity, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'company report' plus the sibling importyeti_search suggests this is the detail lookup once you have a slug. There is no statement of when to use this versus the search tool, nor any prerequisite about obtaining a slug first.

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