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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and enumerating the returned fields (contacts, prices, rating, reviews, house projects) provides meaningful transparency about what the tool does. It stops short of discussing errors or permissions, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main verb and resource, followed by a clear list of contents and a straightforward Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant detail.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and a clear description of what is returned, making it nearly complete. The only minor gap is not addressing potential ambiguity with sibling profile tools, but this is not essential for basic usage.

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 schema only defines company_id as a string with no description, so the description's 'Company UUID from search_companies results' adds essential meaning. It conveys both the format (UUID) and the provenance of the parameter, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool gets a full company profile with specific contents (contacts, prices, rating, reviews, house projects), which is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like company_deep_profile or company_portfolio, so it misses the top score.

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 implies usage by stating the company_id comes from search_companies results, giving a clear prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as company_deep_profile or compare_companies.

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