Get a Quera company

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return contents (profile sections + jobs list) and the chaining behavior that annotations cannot express. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown slug, 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the payload definition front-loaded and the workflow hint second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what comes back, and where the input comes from. Only the error case for an invalid or unknown slug is left unaddressed.

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 schema already says the slug comes from qr_companies or qr_job with an example. The description adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a company's Quera profile') and enumerates the payload fields (about, size, industry, tech stack, benefits, contacts) plus open jobs. That level of detail separates it cleanly from qr_companies, which by name is the listing counterpart.

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?

'Call after qr_companies or qr_job' gives an explicit prerequisite and ordering, and 'The jobs list has ids for qr_job' explains the downstream handoff. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. slug-only lookup vs name search), so it is not a full 5.

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