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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that costs accrue per company checked even if nothing is returned, and that request bodies are capped at 8 KB. It also explains cursor-based incremental behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds cost and splitting guidance. It is slightly repetitive in explaining per-company pricing, but all sentences are relevant.

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 tells the agent what is returned (only companies with new evidence) and how to handle limits/cost. It could be more explicit about the response shape or the next_cursor returned, but it is sufficient for basic 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?

The since parameter is described as the next_cursor from a previous call and domains are implicitly described as company domains up to 400, with an 8 KB cap. However, the domains parameter lacks an explicit schema-level description and the optional behavior of since is not stated.

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 clearly states that the tool accepts a book of up to 400 company domains and a cursor and returns only companies with new evidence since that cursor. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools by focusing on incremental polling.

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 this is the tool to poll daily or weekly rather than re-fetching every company, and provides concrete guidance on splitting larger books across calls due to the 8 KB cap and per-company pricing. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and how-to-use context.

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