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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: API-key gating for personal emails and names, public-page data without a key, on-demand crawling for unprofiled domains, retry timing, and no charge for that crawl.

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 usage case is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the description is broken into logical concerns: use case, returned data, API-key limits, alternatives, and crawl behavior. It is thorough rather than wasteful, though the long inventory of returned fields makes it denser than ideal.

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 and one required parameter, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, access limits, and crawl behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret what comes back.

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 single domain parameter is already documented with format examples. The description adds context about when the domain is known and what happens if the domain is unprofiled, but it does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: look up one specific company by its website domain. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by telling the agent not to use it to find a company by name and to use search_companies instead, and to use find_people for names at a company.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks about one specific company and the domain is known, such as account research before a call. It also gives clear alternatives and exclusions, including search_companies for finding a domain by name and find_people for people names.

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