Get Company Peers

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds access context (Pro only) and output behavior (returns each peer's uei, intended for chaining), which goes beyond the schema and annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage distinction, parameter notes, and output chaining. It is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers access level, parameter constraints, return shape, and relationship to sibling tools. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents uei as a 12-character Unique Entity ID and limit as max 50, adding useful constraints not present in the schema. Limit's default is already in the schema, so no need to repeat it.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Find companies similar to this one') and defines the matching logic (NAICS + agency overlap). It explicitly contrasts with get_company_profile and search_companies, making the tool's role in the family unambiguous.

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?

Provides the exact question the tool answers and names two alternative tools with their different purposes, so an agent knows when to use this one. The Pro-only restriction is also a clear usage condition.

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