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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response is tier-dependent (on Strategic plans an alt-data layer of office expansions and USPTO trademarks is included), which affects what the agent will actually receive.

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 with no filler. The breadth of the return payload is front-loaded and the usage condition is saved for the end, matching how an agent reads the definition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by category. Combined with full parameter coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents id vs slug. The description adds provenance the schema lacks — 'Takes the company id or slug from any search result' — telling the agent where to source the value, which is genuinely useful for chaining calls.

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 and resource ('Everything Fundz holds on one company in a single call') and enumerates the returned content categories (firmographics, funding rounds, executive moves, acquisitions, SEC filings, trademarks). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list-style searches: 'Use this when the user asks about a specific company rather than for a list.'

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('when the user asks about a specific company') and contrasts with list retrieval, which is the right axis given siblings like search_funding_rounds and search_executive_changes. It does not name a specific sibling alternative for narrower company sub-resources (e.g., get_company_contacts), so it stops just short of fully explicit routing.

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