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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the billing model (1 point per returned record), which is genuinely useful, and enumerates the return fields. However it says nothing about pagination limits, auth requirements, rate limits, or what an empty result means.

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: purpose first, then the field list, then the cost note. No wasted text, though the enumerated return fields make it a bit list-heavy for 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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to fill, and all four parameters are covered by the schema. It lacks pagination/result-count behavior and explicit routing to run_si_companies, leaving modest 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 the schema already documents keyword, status, max_items and start_page, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'by company name' aligns with keyword but adds no format or syntax detail, and its 'active/deleted' wording slightly diverges from the schema enum values 'active/inactive'.

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 (Slovenia company registry / AJPES PRS) and scopes it by company name. It lists the returned fields, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_si_companies (detail) tool, so an agent must infer the search-vs-detail split from the name.

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 the primary usage mode and the '1 point per returned record' cost hint is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus run_si_companies, no guidance on choosing status filters, and no stated exclusions.

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