lookup_company

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: emails are SMTP-verified, scored 0-95, free providers excluded. It implies a read operation and gives details on output content. It does not mention rate limits or auth but is sufficient for a typical enrichment tool.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the primary purpose and output components. Second sentence adds critical detail on email verification. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but the description lists the major output categories (tech stack, emails, team, signals, details). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what is returned. Could mention limits but not essential for this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying default for min_confidence (50), suggesting 90 for outreach-safe, and explaining verification_status format. These details aid correct parameter usage.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'full company enrichment', and scope 'for a domain'. It lists specific enrichments (tech stack, verified emails, team members, web signals, company details), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 when to use via its comprehensive nature, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention siblings. It provides context on email verification and exclusion of free providers, which helps in deciding suitability.

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