Company profile

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the description is free to add value and does: it enumerates the returned profile fields and states the ads come back "newest first" as job cards. It stops short of covering failure modes (unknown id, rate limits), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then the input source, then the disambiguation pointers to siblings. No filler or repetition of 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and discharges it by listing the profile attributes (size, ownership, industries, city, founding year, website, benefits, rating, rank, counts) and the embedded ad cards. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing.

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, but the description adds cross-tool meaning the schema lacks: it tells the agent where company_id can be sourced from (jv_search / jv_job) and that open_jobs governs the embedded ad list returned "newest first." That is genuine semantics beyond the field descriptions.

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?

"Get an employer's profile and its currently open job ads" names a specific verb (get) and two concrete resources (profile, open ads), which immediately separates it from jv_search or jv_job in the sibling list.

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?

It states the required input provenance ("a company id from jv_search or jv_job") and explicitly routes two adjacent needs elsewhere: jv_companies for name-to-id lookup and jv_interviews for interview reports. Both an when-to-use condition and named alternatives are present.

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