Get how a company handles complaints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-corpus behavior are covered structurally. The description usefully adds that results are cited and include statistics, traps, and known scams, which signals research-grade content rather than raw records. It says nothing about data freshness, what happens when no company is known, or how large the dossier is.

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?

Three compact sentences that front-load the content inventory, with the actionable directive placed last. The parenthetical list is dense but every item is informative rather than filler. Minor cost: the run-on enumeration takes a moment to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/closed-world profile. The remaining gap is input behavior: for a two-optional-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should say what a call with neither parameter yields and how sector and company interact.

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 0% and both parameters are optional with no titles or docs, so the description must carry the burden. It only gestures at the two inputs through "a company" and "its sector", never stating the expected format, whether company alone is sufficient, or what the tool returns when either is omitted.

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 concretely enumerates the resource's contents: a cited dossier on how a company handles complaints (what works, traps, complaint statistics, scams using its name), a sector guide, and a general scam guide. That is far more specific than a restatement of the title. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as get_company or scam_check, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which to pick.

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?

"Read it before contacting the company" gives one clear situational cue for invoking the tool. There are no exclusions, no named alternatives, and no guidance on how this differs from get_company, get_playbook, or scam_check, so the when-not and versus-which decisions are left to inference.

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