company_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a cost/performance trait (disabling sections makes runs cheaper and faster), which is genuine behavioral value. It is silent, though, on permissions/auth needs, rate limits, and that it is a read-only operation, so key traits remain undisclosed.

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 core capability followed by an actionable cost tip. The section enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what output to expect; only the overlapping 'DNS/e-mail security' vs 'TLS/security grade' phrasing is slightly redundant.

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 9-parameter composite with no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by enumerating the returnable sections and noting the cost lever. It omits the multi-domain behavior ('one result row per domain') and any auth/permission context, but the description is nearly sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the includes/domain parameters are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's section list loosely maps to the include flags but adds no syntax or override semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Build') and resource ('one-stop company profile for a domain') and enumerates exactly what it assembles: contacts, tech stack, DNS/e-mail security, TLS/security grade, hiring signals, Wikidata facts, and SEO audit. This immediately distinguishes it as a composite/aggregator relative to siblings like extract_contacts, detect_tech_stack, and check_email_security.

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 closing sentence gives real guidance on how to use it ('turn off sections you don't need to make the run cheaper and faster'), which steers toward minimal section selection. However, it never states when to prefer this aggregator over the narrower siblings (detect_tech_stack, extract_contacts) or when-not to use it, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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