web-company-intel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Pure HTML extraction — no external APIs', which informs the agent that the tool does not handle JavaScript-rendered content. It also lists the extracted data types. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error cases, or authentication requirements, which would make it more transparent.

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 three sentences long, each adding value: the first states the action and target, the second lists outputs, and the third clarifies the method and cost. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, output details, and technical approach. It lacks explicit mention of limitations or error behaviors, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected results.

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 covers the single 'url' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds context by explaining what the URL is used for and what output to expect, going beyond the schema's bare definition. This helps the agent understand the parameter's role in the extraction process.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'company intelligence from any public website'. It lists the specific fields returned, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'company-intel' or 'company-due-diligence', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides a cost comparison to an external tool but does not give any guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. There is no explicit context about prerequisites or alternatives beyond pricing, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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