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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that matching is prefix-based (not exact), that results include a name and registry-extract link, and that cost is 1 point per returned record. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination/failure 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, tightly written sentence that is front-loaded with the register name and matching mode, with the return fields and cost appended compactly. No wasted language.

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 or annotations, the description partially compensates by naming the return fields and the cost. It leaves pagination behavior (max_items/start_page) and access requirements unaddressed, so it is only minimally complete for a three-parameter search tool.

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 three parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds prefix-matching semantics for the keyword that the schema's terse 'Company name' does not convey, but says nothing about max_items or start_page.

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 (Slovakia Commercial Register / Obchodný register SR), and matching mode (by the beginning of the business name), plus what is returned (name and registry link). Clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling run_sk_companies.

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 prefix-matching scope ('by the beginning of the business name') implies when the tool is appropriate versus an exact-name lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as run_sk_companies.

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