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

Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: it requires an active evaluation or paid plan and live account access, and consumes one shared claim credit. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by access and cost constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers purpose, access requirements, and cost. It lacks explicit guidance on routing between this and sibling tools, which is the main remaining gap for an agent selecting among related operations.

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 has full description coverage for all parameters, so the description need not explain syntax. The context reports zero top-level parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description lists supported identifier types, but that information is already present in the schema variants.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find ranked CompanyProof company matches' by multiple identifier types. It clearly describes the search operation, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or verify_company_claims.

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 prerequisites (active evaluation/paid plan, live account access) and cost (one shared claim credit), which implies when the tool is usable. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this search over alternatives such as get_company_profile or verify_company_claims.

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