Glassdoor company data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the type of data returned but does not disclose prerequisites, output format details, error behavior, or limitations. For a data-fetching tool this is a notable gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states what the tool returns. No filler or redundant information, and it is easy to parse.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the returned data, but it lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally adequate for a low-complexity tool but leaves room for improvement.

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% for the single url parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Glassdoor company URL'. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool returns a structured Glassdoor company profile with specific data points (rating, CEO approval, culture scores). It distinguishes from the sibling glassdoor_reviews tool by focusing on company profile data rather than reviews, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 for company profile data via the parenthetical content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The sibling glassdoor_reviews is not mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit based on the tool name and content.

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