extract_company_landscape

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with open-world assumptions. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool queries 5 specific external sources, returns a 'unified 5-source timestamped report,' mentions data sources like SEC filings and government contracts, and notes the 'max_length' parameter controls output size. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful implementation details.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence establishes purpose, subsequent sentences detail the 5 sources with parenthetical explanations, and final sentences describe output and uniqueness. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool and front-loads key information about being a composite analysis tool.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, multiple data sources, no output schema), the description provides strong context: it lists all 5 data sources, explains the composite nature, and notes the unified report output. However, without an output schema, it could better describe the report structure or format. The annotations cover safety aspects, and parameter documentation is mostly adequate, making it nearly complete for agent use.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), providing good baseline documentation. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'github_url' improves changelog accuracy (beyond schema's 'optional' note) and implies 'max_length' controls report size (though not explicitly stated). However, it doesn't fully explain parameter interactions (e.g., how ticker affects finance data when blank).

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 explicitly states the tool performs 'company intelligence' and 'analysis', specifying it queries 5 unique sources (SEC EDGAR, USASpending.gov, GDELT, product changelog, Yahoo Finance) to return a unified report. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's a 'composite' tool combining sources that are available individually in other tools like extract_sec_filings, extract_govcontracts, extract_gdelt, extract_finance_landscape, and extract_changelog.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it's 'the most complete single-call company analysis available' and 'this combination is not available in any other MCP server.' This clearly indicates it should be used when comprehensive multi-source analysis is needed, rather than the individual sibling tools that query single sources. It also implies when not to use it (when only specific single-source data is required).

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