CompanyScope

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral details: multi-source scraping methodology (website /about/team pages, Wikipedia, GitHub), return structure (names, titles, sources), and input requirement. Lacks mention of failure modes (blocked scraping) or caching behavior.

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?

Five sentences total, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, methodology, output format, usage context, and prerequisites. No redundancy or generic filler.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, description adequately compensates by detailing return values (names, titles, sources) and data provenance. Would benefit from explicit output schema or error condition mention to achieve 5.

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% with clear description and example for 'domain'. Description states 'Requires a domain name' but adds no semantic value beyond schema documentation (format, protocol exclusion already covered). Baseline 3 appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Find' and clear resource 'key people at a company', immediately distinguishing from siblings like get_financials or get_tech_stack by specifying human targets (founders, C-suite, team members).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when you need leadership or team information specifically,' providing clear positive context. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives (e.g., doesn't mention lookup_company for general info), preventing a 5.

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