Read a company's website

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds important context beyond them by explaining that detected technologies are recorded as facts with source pages. It also discloses that returned page text is untrusted user-authored content and must be treated as data, never instructions, and that execution is local with nothing sent to Trood.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return-value context, a prompt-injection warning, local-execution disclosure, and refresh guidance. Every sentence carries distinct operational value, and the structure lets an agent extract the key rules quickly.

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 web-research tool with a write side effect, the description is complete enough: it explains what is read, what is recorded, what text is returned, how to treat untrusted returned content, and where execution happens. With no output schema, it appropriately covers the return behavior in prose.

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%, so the input schema already explains website, industry, and extraPages in detail. The description adds useful context about what pages are read by default and that research can be rerun to refresh, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Reads a company's website') and defines scope precisely: the home page plus up to three relevant internal pages. It also states the second action ('detects what it runs on... and records those as facts with their source page'), which clearly distinguishes it from a simple retrieval sibling like get_company.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed: it says 'Research again to refresh', which gives a rerun condition, and the action itself makes the research use case obvious. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_company or when to avoid it, so the guidance remains adequate but incomplete.

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