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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing trait ('1 point per returned record') and the fields returned, which is genuinely beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior (despite start_page/max_items existing), result limits, or error/empty-result behavior.

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 tight sentence plus a short cost note; the core purpose and source registry are front-loaded with no filler. The trailing '1 point per returned record' is slightly awkwardly appended but still earns its place as cost information.

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?

For a 4-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, source, returned fields, and cost, but omits pagination semantics and any note on how to retrieve a full company record. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter (keyword, status, max_items, start_page) is already documented, including the enum for status. The description only restates the name-based lookup and adds no format or syntax 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 (Search) and resource (Netherlands company registry / KVK Handelsregister) and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from non-search siblings in the country family, though it does not explicitly contrast with run_nl_companies (the detail 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?

The phrase 'by company name' implies when this search is appropriate, and the registry name gives context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of run_nl_companies as the alternative for fetching a full record by ID. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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