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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' line is redundant. However, the added note that 'Every result carries its citation and link' provides useful output context not present in annotations or an output schema. Pagination and matching behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The core action and scope appear immediately, followed by safety and result-format notes.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete for a two-parameter tool. It does not explain how the name query matches or what limit controls, leaving key invocation details to inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the query is by company name, but says nothing about partial matching, case sensitivity, or the 'limit' parameter and its maximum of 25.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('companies') and narrows scope to companies with a Standing Report in the AI Authority Index searched by name. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_company_authority_score or get_market_standing.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this search tool versus alternatives such as get_company_authority_score or get_market_standing. The agent must infer that this is for name-based discovery rather than score retrieval.

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