enrich_businesses_company_ratings

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the return categories (ratings, culture, etc.) but omits details like idempotency, rate limits, or that it requires business IDs from match_businesses (implied by schema but not explicit). This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. The bullet list of return categories is well-structured, though listing each category individually is slightly verbose. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 is a simple bulk enrichment with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. It lists all rating categories, though it could have mentioned that the results are for a specific company and require pre-existing business IDs.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage with a clear explanation of the business_ids parameter. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'internal company ratings', making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like enrich_businesses_financial_metrics, which also return data about businesses for enrichment.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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