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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which the schema does not, but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the start_page parameter.

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, front-loaded with the search scope followed by returned fields and cost. Little waste, though the field list and point-cost are slightly crammed into one sentence.

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 enumerating the returned fields, and it adds a cost disclosure absent from annotations. Given the simple 4-parameter search surface, this is largely complete, though it could note pagination or result limits for a registry that caps at 250 items.

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 in the schema. The description only loosely reinforces 'by company name or registration number' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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+resource (search the Latvia company registry) and enumerates the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, link), making the scope clear. It distinguishes itself from country-registry siblings by naming Latvia and the Register of Enterprises, but does not explicitly differentiate from run_lv_companies or run_lv_company_filings.

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 phrase 'by company name or registration number' implies the lookup modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools run_lv_companies or run_lv_company_filings. Usage is only implied.

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