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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses cost (0.001 credits per call) and the anonymous rate limit (25 calls/day per address), which an agent needs for planning and retry behavior. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination, but the added operational context is genuinely useful.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation first, then endpoint, cost and limit. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical packs pricing ahead of any semantic detail an agent would more urgently need.

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 no parameter descriptions, the description leaves the two inputs and the result contents entirely unexplained. Cost and rate limits are covered, but for a search tool that will be invoked with a user-supplied query string, that omission is significant.

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% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden — and it adds nothing. Neither 'q' (query syntax? ticker vs name?) nor 'limit' (maximum 100, default 20) is clarified beyond the raw JSON schema types.

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 verb+resource ('Company search') and pins it to an explicit endpoint, which fixes the operation. But it never says what is searched (name, ticker, domain?) or how results relate to the sibling company_overview, so the agent cannot distinguish search from lookup on purpose alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no mention of alternatives such as company_overview, filings, or fundamentals. The only routing signal is the pricing/rate-limit note, which is incidental rather than situational.

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