Company profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: ratings are 1-5 averages over all employee ratings and the six categories are named, which tells the agent how to interpret the returned numbers. It does not mention auth, rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only profile fetch those are minor.

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 resource and its contents, then two short labeled blocks ('Use after', 'Next:') that separate entry conditions from follow-ups. Every sentence carries routing or interpretation value; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so by enumerating fields including the rating breakdown. Combined with the explicit upstream/downstream sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: the returned jobs are the company's *newest* open jobs, which pairs with the schema's 0-10 cap and contrasts with the note that it_search_jobs(company=id) returns all jobs. That contrast clarifies the parameter's intent rather than restating defaults.

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 ('Read a company profile') and then enumerates the returned content: about text, industry, size, address, website, rating breakdown, newest open jobs. That enumeration makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like it_company_reviews or it_job, which cover adjacent content.

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?

Gives an explicit entry point ('Use after it_companies or it_search_jobs') and explicit next steps ('it_company_reviews for review text, it_search_jobs(company=id) for all jobs'). It routes the agent between this tool and its nearest siblings, including the exact call shape for the alternative.

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