CompanyScope

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses aggregation behavior across multiple external sources, return format as 'JSON object with confidence scores and source attribution', and the comprehensiveness of returned fields. Could improve by mentioning latency, caching behavior, or rate limit considerations for the external APIs.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: 1) purpose/sources, 2) return contents, 3) usage guidelines/relationship to siblings, 4) input/output format details. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct value not redundant with schema or siblings list.

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 aggregation tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively compensates by listing all returned data categories (founding year, tech stack, key people, etc.) and output structure (confidence scores, attribution). Adequately addresses the 5 single-purpose sibling tools by explaining its aggregate nature.

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% (single 'query' parameter fully documented in schema), establishing baseline 3. Description elevates this by providing concrete input examples ('stripe.com' vs 'Stripe') and critical semantic guidance that 'Domains produce richer results because they enable website scraping and DNS analysis' - helping users select input format wisely.

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?

Excellent specificity with verb 'Get', resource 'company profile', and explicit data source enumeration (Wikipedia, GitHub, SEC EDGAR, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it is the 'primary entry point' that 'calls all other data sources automatically', positioning it as the composite alternative to single-source siblings like get_company_news.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this as the primary entry point for any company research'. Implicitly guides against using siblings individually by noting this tool aggregates them 'automatically'. Also provides input strategy guidance favoring domains over names for richer results.

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