run_tracxn_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned payload fields and a cost signal ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error/not-found behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and identifier, then the return contents, then the cost note. The long field enumeration is dense but informative; the only mild redundancy is restating the accepted input types already in the schema.

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?

With no output schema available, enumerating the returned fields (funding, valuation, investors, competitors, news, etc.) is a real contribution and tells the agent what to expect. Combined with the pricing note, this is sufficient for correct invocation, though auth/error context is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'company' param already documents 'Company URL or id token' with an example. The description restates the same two input forms without adding format or validation detail, so 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 ('Get one company from Tracxn') plus the accepted identifiers (profile URL or id token). The word 'one' cleanly separates it from the sibling run_tracxn_companies_search, and the field list makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one company' and 'by profile URL or id token' hint that you need a known identifier rather than a query, but no sibling is named and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the detail-lookup counterpart to the search tool.

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