importyeti_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is 'credential-free public data' and explains the rendering mechanism ('through proxied browser renderers'), adding important context about access requirements and data source. It does not cover potential limitations like rate limits or freshness, but it does provide meaningful transparency beyond a simple 'get report' statement.

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 three sentences long, with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('Get an ImportYeti company report'), uses the second sentence to list key data components, and the third to clarify the data source and access. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what is returned: identity, shipment-volume metrics, supplier list, and recent bill-of-lading activity. It also notes the data is 'normalized' and public. It is reasonably complete for a read-only report tool, though it stops short of detailing exact output structures or potential edge cases.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'slug' (100% coverage), including its meaning as the last path segment of a /company/{slug} URL. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, establishing a baseline score of 3.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get an ImportYeti company report.' It then enumerates the report's contents (identity, shipment metrics, supplier list, bill-of-lading activity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like importyeti_search by its focus on a single company's full report.

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 clearly implies usage (when you need a company report for a given slug) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as importyeti_search, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied, not stated.

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