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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the failure behavior (400 VALIDATION_ERROR when both params are missing) and the billing cost (1 credit per call). It also hints at the read-only nature via 'Get', though it does not describe the response format or mention rate limits. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the parameter requirement, followed by a practical tip and structured metadata (Group, Billing). Every sentence contributes value and no redundant text is present.

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 simple read operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential prerequisites, error condition, and an important sourcing tip. The return value is intuitive for a 'get profile' tool, so the lack of explicit return format is a minor gap. Overall it is fairly complete.

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 documents both parameters with descriptions and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantics: the slug must be taken from a `/company/search` result and may differ from the display name, which prevents a common misuse. This goes beyond basic parameter documentation, justifying a 4.

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 title 'Get a company profile' states a clear verb and resource, and the description adds that it requires either `slug` or `companyId`. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_post or get_person_profile, the resource type 'company' is unambiguous. A score of 4 reflects the clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context: it explicitly says to provide either `slug` or `companyId`, warns that omitting both causes a 400 error, and advises taking the slug from `/company/search` rather than guessing it. This is strong contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Hence a 4.

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