lookup_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the one-credit cost, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or the return format details beyond listing fields. Acceptable for a simple read tool but not rich.

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: first defines the operation and outputs, second gives usage guidance and cost. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded, no 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?

The tool is simple (one input, one table of outputs). The description covers purpose, input, output fields, usage context, and cost. Missing only edge-case behavior, which is minor for this straightforward lookup.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'domain' with a clear format example. The description adds no new parameter details but reinforces the input type. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 resolves a domain to company details (name, industry, city, country, address, LinkedIn URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_technology or lookup_companies by its specific domain-to-firmographics purpose.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'when asked who owns or operates a website, or to enrich a domain into firmographics.' It does not list exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives, but gives sufficient context for when to choose this tool.

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