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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: result shape (node:<number> id, one-line title, dashboard url) and a conditional behavior — person records appear only where person data is enabled. It stops short of describing result caps or ordering for this tool, which is a minor gap given the output schema.

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-loads what the tool does, then returns, then next step, then the alternative — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The return-shape sentence partially overlaps the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one-parameter search with a shipped output schema, the description covers purpose, result structure, follow-up routing and the person-data caveat. It does not state whether results are capped or how to widen a search locally, but that is largely delegated to search_companies, leaving only a small residual gap.

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% and the single 'query' parameter already documents accepted forms (name, scheme:value, bare number). The description restates that as 'by name or register identifier' and adds only the soft hint that person names may also match; it adds little syntax or format meaning 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 and resource ('Find companies in the caller's Stonewake workspace by name or register identifier') and explicitly separates itself from two siblings, fetch and search_companies. An agent can distinguish its role without opening any schema.

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?

Names the follow-up path ('Pass a result's id to fetch for the full document') and the alternative ('For match details, register identifiers and a result limit use search_companies'). Both when-to-use-this and when-to-use-something-else are explicit.

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