Get universe company

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: server-side domain normalization, the inverse relationship between requested layers and items per layer, capping of long arrays with _capped kept/total counters, and _omitted layers paired with the exact call that recovers them. It also guarantees the returned JSON is always complete and valid, which matters for an open-world lookup.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then Args, Returns, and Use-when in a predictable order with no filler prose. The Args block partly restates the schema, but it earns its place by adding normalization and layer-tradeoff details; the length is justified by the tool's breadth.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing return shape and it does so concretely (top-level data keys, capping, omission protocol, validity guarantee). Combined with the domain/layer semantics and the sibling fallback, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: domain accepts a bare domain or any URL on it and is normalized server-side, and the layers filter is described behaviorally ('asking for fewer layers returns more items of each') rather than just listed. That is genuine value above the schema's enum list.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Get the universe profile for one company by domain') and immediately enumerates the intelligence layers covered, which cleanly separates it from get_report, get_battlecard, and get_competitor_intelligence. An agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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 'Use when: give me everything Rivalize knows about <domain>' line states clear usage context, and the description names fallback siblings (get_competitor_intelligence / get_report) for the not-tracked case. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement against the other sibling lookups, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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