revnuvo_get_company_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that data is 'observed' and 'latest', and mentions fingerprint freshness, implying a potentially cached or stale snapshot rather than a live fetch. However, it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or whether the domain must already be monitored.

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 sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the specific output components compactly parenthesized. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough orientation: it names the main output aspects and the intended question type. It could be more complete about output format and error situations, but this is adequate for the tool's low complexity.

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 fully describes the only parameter, 'domain', with a type and example format. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, 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 states that the tool returns the latest observed state of a domainizen and names three concrete components: technologies, fingerprint freshness, and observation hash. The phrase 'as of now questions' helps distinguish it from timeline and changes siblings, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get'.

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 explicitly scopes the tool to 'as of now' questions, which is a clear usage context that differentiates it from historical/change-oriented sibling tools. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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