company_overview

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by naming the data sources and the narrative format, but it does not disclose limitations such as potentially outdated or incomplete public data, or access failures.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every phrase adds information about either the output content or the data sources, making it easy to scan.

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 description adequately names the output type and content for a simple read-only research tool, and the schema covers most inputs. However, there is no output schema and the description does not address the sector-research alternative supported by the schema, nor any caveats about the narrative result, leaving some gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the required context.company field has no description in the input schema. The tool description does not explain how to specify the company (name vs. domain), nor does it clarify the optional sector/country fields, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Produces') and clearly identifies the resource: a narrative business overview. It also lists the content dimensions (what the company does, products/services, target market) and sources, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like company_profile or industry_overview, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company_profile or discover_competitors, and no exclusions are stated. The description only indirectly implies a use case (public-facing overview from the company's own site and LinkedIn), leaving selection to inference.

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