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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the results are cached, this avoids re-running a search, and the tool is EXPERIMENTAL. It stops short of stating cache lifetime or whether results can go stale, which is the main unaddressed trait.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a short mechanism explanation and a compact example. Tighter than most; the example is mildly redundant with the already-explicit search_id wording but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the retrieval workflow and its precondition, leaving only edge cases (expired search_id, retention window) unstated — minor for a two-parameter read 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% — the search_id parameter is already documented as coming from a prior search call, and api_key documents its own header alternatives. The description restates the search_id origin without adding format, validity, or expiry details, 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 and resource: 'Retrieve cached company search results by search ID.' It explicitly names the siblings that produce the search_id (company_search_person, company_search_company), so an agent can immediately distinguish cached retrieval from running a new search.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use: retrieve prior results again 'without re-running the search,' and explains the precondition (a search_id from a prior search call). It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. expired/unavailable search IDs), but the routing context is unambiguous.

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