Resolve company names to Ashby boards

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool 'reports every form that answered' and shows 'spellings that were tried', which goes beyond the safety profile and explains its observational nature.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, and key behavior. The tool is simple, and the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it 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% with a description for 'name' that already mentions it accepts a company name or an existing token. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('company name into the token'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling search_jobs by noting that search_jobs already does this, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'call this when a name returns nothing' and names the alternative (search_jobs). This provides clear context for deciding between tools, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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