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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing trait ('1 point per returned record') and the retrieved fields, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits auth needs, rate limits, and pagination behavior.

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, tight sentence with an inline colon list of return fields and a trailing cost note. Purpose and cost are front-loaded with no wasted text.

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, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, and it names the registry and cost model. It is nearly complete, missing only pagination semantics and the relationship to its run_at_companies sibling.

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 100%, so the four parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces the 'company name or FN' input mapping and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 situation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Austria company registry (Firmenbuch)') plus the search keys ('by company name or FN') and the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling run_at_companies (the direct-lookup counterpart) or the many other country search tools.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. The mention of searching 'by company name or FN' implies a keyword input but does not tell the agent when this search entry point is preferable to run_at_companies.

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