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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially succeeds: it discloses billing behavior ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. Search itself communicates a read-only, non-destructive operation.

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 compact sentence covering source, lookup keys, and returned fields, plus a short cost note. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant with the search phrasing.

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, mentioning returned fields (name, registration number, status, legal form) is a real contribution, and the cost disclosure is valuable. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool that overlaps heavily, the definition leaves an agent guessing about when this differs from run_ge_companies and what pagination/volume constraints apply.

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 are already documented (enums, max 250 items, default 25, page start). The description adds only that lookup is by name or identification code, which loosely maps to 'keyword' but doesn't clarify status/max_items/start_page semantics beyond the schema. 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 (Search) and resource (Georgia company registry / NAPR) and the two lookup keys (company name or identification code). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_ge_companies, which appears to be the same-registry non-search variant.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus run_ge_companies or the many other country-level company tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search'; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance.

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