Find All Company Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing cost behavior (sum of sub-calls, Potarix credits) and the composite nature of the call, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences pack crucial information: the composite scope, pricing implications, and API credit source. No fluff, each sentence earns its place. The informal 'kitchen-sink' opener is efficient and memorable.

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 complex composite tool with no output schema, the description does a good job: it enumerates the three sub-results, mentions cost considerations, and points to docs. It does not detail return format or error behavior, but given the annotations and the explicit doc reference, the description is sufficiently complete for agent selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by connecting 'pricing is the sum of underlying sub-calls' to skip_company_emails (as a way to save credits) and by indicating dm_categories maps to the 'categories you request.' These additions provide semantic value beyond the schema's existing property descriptions.

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 a specific composite action: resolving a website, finding decision-maker emails, and pulling the company-wide email roster all in one call. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_company_emails or lookup_company_website by framing it as a combined 'kitchen-sink' option.

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 implies usage when multiple lookups are needed at once and mentions cost trade-offs ('Pricing is the sum of underlying sub-calls'), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare to alternatives. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer when it fits, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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