get_company_engagement

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return values including the intent score formula, specific fields like pricing_page_sessions, and the intent_spiking flag. It also states the BigQuery requirement, which is a behavioral constraint. No mention of rate limits or permissions, but adequate for a read-like operation.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key output. Every sentence adds value: purpose, formula details, specific return fields, use case, and a prerequisite. No wasted words.

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's medium complexity (composite score, multiple return fields) and no output schema, the description provides good detail about what is returned. It covers the main outputs but does not mention pagination or limits, which are likely irrelevant for a single-company summary. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (company_domain has a description). The description adds no extra meaning for either parameter beyond what the schema provides. For period_type, the description implies rolling periods but does not elaborate on values. This is adequate but fails to fully compensate for the lower schema coverage.

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 a rolling engagement summary with a composite intent score, specifying the verb 'return' and resource 'engagement summary for a company'. It differentiates from siblings like get_company_profile by highlighting the unique intent score and specific output fields.

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 says 'Use this for a quick account health check before outreach,' providing clear context for when to use it. It also mentions 'Requires BigQuery mode' as a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, so it's slightly lacking.

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