Get ZoomInfo Tech Stack

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context: the tool returns categorized technology lists, accepts an optional format, and requires one of two identifiers. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying input constraints and output structure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and examples. The examples are useful but could be trimmed without losing essential meaning. It is well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples), earning a high score for efficiency.

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 that the tool has only 3 simple parameters, full schema coverage, and strong safety annotations, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: purpose, input alternatives, output summary, and an example. It doesn't include edge cases like what happens if both company_id and domain are provided, but that is a minor gap. The presence of sibling tools gives enough context to distinguish usage.

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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds value by stating that company_id or domain are alternatives (one must be provided) and by giving examples, but it does not add detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase ('Get the technology stack used by a company') and delineates categories (CRM, marketing automation, etc.), which clearly states the tool's function. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zoominfo_search_company by focusing on tech stack rather than general company search or contact/org data.

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 explains that you can provide either company_id or domain, effectively saying when to use each identifier and that they are alternative inputs. It also gives example queries mapping natural language to parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like zoominfo_search_company, though the scope (tech stack) is implied.

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