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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden alone. It usefully discloses cost ("1 point per returned record") and the shape of the returned records, which is genuine value. It does not, however, describe pagination behavior, result limits, or auth/rate considerations, so transparency is partial rather than rich.

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 names the verb and resource first, then enumerates outputs, with a short trailing cost note. No padding or repetition, though the internal structure is dense enough that the cost clause reads as an afterthought.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (name, RCS number, status, link) and disclosing the per-record cost. This is nearly enough for a 4-parameter search tool, with only pagination semantics and the sibling distinction left unaddressed.

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 schema already documents keyword, status, max_items and start_page, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description's mention of status values "radiée / en faillite" describes returned record values and could mildly conflict with the input param enum (active/inactive), adding more confusion than clarity.

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 (Luxembourg company registry, LBR/RCS) plus the two lookup keys (company name or RCS number) and the fields returned. This is far more informative than a tautology, but it never names the sibling run_lu_companies or run_lu_company_filings, so the agent must infer the distinction from the verb 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 description implies usage by telling you it searches by company name or RCS number, which covers lookup-by-name or lookup-by-ID cases. However, it offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never clarifies when to pick this over the direct run_lu_companies tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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