company_business_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context about the research scope but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

The description is brief (5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, research scope, then parameter docs. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers the research scope and all parameters. Missing explicit usage guidelines, but otherwise complete for a straightforward retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The Args section fully describes 'company_name', 'output_format' (with options), and 'max_results' (with range). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles and types.

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 'Get information about a company's business model' and details what it researches (revenue streams, unit economics, go-to-market strategy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on other aspects like clients, financials, or products.

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 tells what the tool covers (business model research) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'company_financials' or 'research_company'. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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