company_overview

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the data sources and output type but omits details on potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or limitations (e.g., company size or information recency). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a clear overview sentence followed by a list of arguments. It is well-structured and front-loaded. However, the argument list could be slightly more compact; the current format is clear but not maximally efficient.

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, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's scope (company overview, sources, content types) and parameters adequately. Minor gaps include lack of mention of error handling or performance expectations, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: company_name (target company), output_format (with options 'answer' or 'structured'), include_images (binary flag), and max_results (range 1-50). This adds significant value beyond the schema itself.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a comprehensive overview of a company.' It specifies the research sources (website, LinkedIn, press coverage) and the information provided (industry, size, business model). The name and description effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like company_financials or company_leadership, which focus on specific aspects.

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 implies when to use this tool (for a broad overview) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives from the sibling list. It lacks guidance on conditions that would favor a more specific tool, such as financial or leadership details.

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