get_company_by_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API source and lookup behavior, but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, API context, example, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single-parameter lookup), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides adequate context. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, return value examples, and API source. The output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, which it respects.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains what the 'domain' parameter represents ('Company website domain'), provides an example format ('anthropic.com'), and clarifies the lookup logic. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well for the single parameter.

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 with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('company information'), and lookup method ('by website domain'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_company' tool by specifying the domain-based lookup approach rather than a general company lookup.

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 usage context by mentioning the Professional Network Data API and providing an example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_companies' or 'get_company'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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