filed_company_intel

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

Discloses that the tool makes multiple API calls (up to ~15) and uses more credits, providing behavioral transparency. No annotations are present, so description carries full weight. However, it does not detail response structure or error behaviors.

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 sentences plus a note, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailing scope and behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's function well but lacks specifics on output format. The mention of 'unified intelligence report' is helpful but vague. Overall adequate for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not add significant meaning beyond schema definitions. The description loosely references the parameters but offers no additional context on formats or defaults beyond what schema already provides.

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 it runs comprehensive intelligence gathering on a company, searching across 9 US states for business registrations, SEC filings, federal contracts, and lobbying disclosures, and returns a unified report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual searches.

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 usage for comprehensive company intel and notes higher credit cost, but does not explicitly specify when to use vs. alternatives or exclude scenarios. Sibling tool list provides context but no direct guidance.

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