revnuvo_get_company_technologies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results include detection evidence and confidence, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires auth, has rate limits, or behaves on missing/unknown domains. The read-only nature is inferred only from the tool name.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the use-case context is provided in the second sentence. Every word contributes.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description effectively conveys the return value shape (evidence and confidence) and the resource. It could be more complete with explicit usage exclusions or behavioral notes, but what is present is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 only parameter, domain, has 100% schema description coverage as 'Company domain'. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns detected technologies for a domain and specifies the output includes detection evidence and confidence. The phrase 'what does X run on?' makes the tool's purpose and answer type explicit, and it is distinct from sibling tools like revnuvo_get_company_state or revnuvo_get_company_timeline.

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 when to use the tool via the question 'what does X run on?', providing a clear context. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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