company_research_v2_render_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool outputs 'professional, mobile-friendly HTML' and includes links and sections, which gives some insight into the output. However, it does not disclose behavior regarding parameter conflicts, performance, error handling, or how the HTML is returned (e.g., stored in variable). Basic transparency is present but lacks detail.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds key features. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 render tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides basic purpose and features. However, it lacks guidance on parameter interaction (e.g., what happens if both `report_data` and `report_id` are provided) and does not explicitly state that the output is the HTML string stored in the variable. Slightly incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions features of the report output, not parameter usage. The parameter descriptions in the schema already explain purpose, so the description provides no additional semantic value.

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 the tool renders a complete company research report as HTML, uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('company research report'), and adds detail about including links to article sources and all research sections. Among sibling tools, it is distinct from other render tools by its focus on company research and mention of sources and sections.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `company_research_v2_get_report` or other render tools. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., having run full research first) or when not to use it. The parameter description for `report_data` hints at a prerequisite, but the tool-level description lacks such context.

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