Get Company Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is clear. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the return fields and stating that it returns a comprehensive hiring profile. No contradictions with annotations. Could be higher if it mentioned any potential rate limits or additional side effects, but for a read-only tool the transparency is solid.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return values, usage examples, and exclusions. Efficient and well-structured.

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 has only 1 parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema (which presumably details return structure), the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies what is returned and provides context on when to use the tool. No missing critical information for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 100% and the single parameter 'domain' already has a detailed description in the schema (e.g., format example, apex domain note). The tool description does not add additional parameter information; it only mentions 'by domain'. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers parameter semantics adequately.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full hiring profile for a single company by domain'. It lists specific return fields (tech stack, role distribution, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by referencing alternatives like get_company_history and company_fit. This provides high specificity and differentiation.

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 explicitly provides example queries ('what is Stripe hiring?', 'what tech does Anthropic use?') and states what the tool is NOT for ('Not for historical trends... or the user's personal fit'), naming specific sibling tools. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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