run_owler_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — a flat 10-point cost per successful run — and enumerates the return payload. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior when a slug is not found, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and location of data, followed by a cost note. The field enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent exactly what the payload contains in the absence of an output schema. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields and the point cost. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance to the search or sub-resource siblings in a very crowded family.

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 single 'company' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the 'stripe' example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by slug or URL' phrasing mirrors the schema and adds no format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetch one Owler company by slug or URL — and enumerates the returned data (funding rounds, acquisitions, competitors, news). This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool (run_owler_companies_search) and the sub-resource tools (run_owler_companies_competitors, run_owler_companies_news) that each return a subset.

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?

'One company ... by slug or URL' implies this is a single-lookup tool rather than a discovery tool, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly names run_owler_companies_search as the way to resolve a company name to a slug, nor does it state any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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