companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a concrete, non-obvious trait — the 3-credit cost — which is real value since billing affects whether an agent should call it. However, it says nothing about the return shape, whether the operation is read-only or mutating, error behavior for unknown domains, or any auth requirements.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Nothing in the text is redundant or wasteful.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves real gaps: what the enrichment actually returns (fields, firmographics, confidence) and whether the cost is incurred on failure or repeated calls. An agent can call it, but cannot predict 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%, and both parameters ('domain' and 'company_name') are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify the domain format (bare host vs. full URL) or how the optional name hint influences enrichment.

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 (enrich), resource (company data), and keying input (by domain), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like domains, site-intel, or profiles, which could also plausibly take a domain and return company context.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative sibling tool. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is the correct tool for domain-based company enrichment versus, say, domains or site-intel.

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