company_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that different report types consume credits (5, 10, 20), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the report is cached, or any side effects beyond credit usage.

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 that are front-loaded with the action and then detail the options. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the report structure. It lists types but does not explain what data each type returns. For a report generation tool, this is a meaningful gap, but the credit cost info partially compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying credit costs for each enum value of the `type` parameter, which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand the trade-offs between report types.

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 'Generate a detailed company health report', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `lookup_company` and `search_companies` by focusing on report generation, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides context on when to use each report type based on credit costs and depth (basic, pro, enterprise), but does not offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like `lookup_company` or when not to use it.

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