company_research_v2_track_company

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a mutation but fails to specify side effects (e.g., what happens if the company is already tracked, whether it overrides existing data, or auth requirements). No mention of rate limits or error scenarios.

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, which is front-loaded. However, it is too brief and could include more useful information without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (despite the 'output_variable_name' parameter), error handling, or persistence behavior. A tracking tool should clarify these aspects.

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%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, it doesn't clarify how to choose between 'domain' and 'company_id' or the expected format of 'tags'. Baseline 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 states the action ('Add a company'), the resource ('to the user's tracked list'), and the purpose ('for monitoring'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'company_research_v2_list_tracked' which lists tracked companies.

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 (e.g., list_tracked for viewing, a hypothetical remove tool). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the company must already exist in the system, or conditions like duplicate handling.

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