Get company profile by domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the behavior is safe. The description adds valuable context about the response content (firmographics, hiring stats, tech stack with adoption context), going beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and streams the output details without unnecessary words.

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 single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool returns and includes an example. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted, which is acceptable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('walgreens.com') and explains what the domain resolves to, but does not significantly enhance the schema's own parameter description ('Company primary domain').

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 'resolve' and the resource 'company domain to its full profile', including specific data categories (firmographics, hiring stats, tech stack with adoption context). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_companies_by_technologies and list_technologies.

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 implies usage when a company domain is known and a full profile is needed. It provides an example domain. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with sibling tools beyond their names.

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