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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that results are ranked by usage, names are case-insensitive, and match modes determine filtering logic. This goes beyond annotations by explaining sorting and search behavior without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the core purpose with ranking, the second provides essential usage notes. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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 tool has no output schema, but as a search tool, the description adequately covers input semantics and behavioral notes (case, match modes, exploration with list_technologies). It lacks details about output format or pagination, but given the context signals and the straightforward nature of the tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only technologies parameter has a description). The description compensates by explaining case-insensitivity for technologies, the two match modes, and that list_technologies can discover available technologies. This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum definitions and defaults for page, page_size, and match.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'companies by technologies', and mentions ranking by usage. It distinguishes from sibling tools: get_company_by_domain retrieves a single company, list_technologies lists available technologies. A specific verb+resource with 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 explains case-insensitivity, the scope of technologies tracked (10,000+), and suggests using list_technologies to explore. It also clarifies match modes: 'any' requires at least one technology, 'all' requires every one. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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