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 add a genuine behavioral trait beyond structured data — '1 point per returned record' discloses a cost model — but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination semantics, leaving substantial gaps for a registry-query tool.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The field list earns its place since no output schema exists, though the phrasing is slightly list-heavy for a definition this short.

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 return-field list usefully compensates for the missing output schema, and the cost note is a plus. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks enough to confidently choose this over run_ee_companies.

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 all four parameters (keyword, status, max_items, start_page) are already documented with examples and ranges. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the name search, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Estonia company registry (e-Business Register) by company name') and lists the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, link). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_ee_companies, so an agent must infer that this is the keyword-search variant versus a lookup.

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?

'By company name' implies the search trigger, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative run_ee_companies (lookup) or run_ee_company_documents. The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone.

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