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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: the upstream source (Corporations Authority) and a cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which tells the agent to keep max_items tight. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior beyond what the schema parameters imply.

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 front-loaded sentence giving source, lookup keys, and return fields, followed by a compact cost caveat. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

Four parameters are all covered by the schema, and with no output schema the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, company type, registration date). The only gap is the relationship to run_il_companies for record-level detail.

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 keyword, status enum, max_items and start_page are already fully documented. The description's 'by company name or company number' merely restates the keyword parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), resource (Israel company registry / Corporations Authority) and the two lookup keys (company name or number), and enumerates returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from its closest sibling run_il_companies (the likely single-company detail tool), so an agent must infer the split from naming alone.

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 registry and query modes imply when to use it (finding Israeli companies by name/number), and the cost note signals this is a billed per-record call worth using deliberately. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the alternative run_il_companies for single-entity lookups.

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