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 does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait – '1 point per returned record' cost – but says nothing about rate limits, auth, result truncation at 250, or whether results are cached/live.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost note appended. Dense but no filler; only the field enumeration could be trimmed since the schema/output handling already implies structure.

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, listing the returned fields (name, UIC, legal form, card link) is valuable and covers the return-shape gap. Missing pieces are minor: no routing to run_bg_companies for details and no note on paging behavior.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it states keyword accepts a UIC (ЕИК) in addition to a company name, which the schema only documents as 'Company name. e.g. sopharma'. It still adds nothing about max_items or start_page behavior.

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 (Search) and resource (Bulgaria company registry / Commercial Register), plus the lookup keys and the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from generic search siblings, though it never names run_bg_companies or run_bg_company_filings to distinguish the detail/filings variants.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to find Bulgarian companies by name or UIC', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling detail tool for card-level information. The lookup-key note is the only real guidance.

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