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

With only openWorldHint as an annotation, the description discloses important behavior: results are 'possible matching records', they include 'mapped company IDs', and selection is deferred to the caller. It also includes pricing/cost context, which adds transparency beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is two short sentences: the first states the core behavior and the second provides pricing. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: input, optional region scoping, return type, and caller-side selection. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return shape further.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the text parameter, including the option to include country or region and relevant examples. The description repeats this information without adding further syntax or semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Search company candidates by company name', and adds scope with 'optionally filtered by country or region'. It also names the key output—'possible matching records with mapped company IDs'—which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like search_region_candidates.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use this tool: when looking up company candidates and letting the caller select from possible matches. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_region_candidates or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an informed agent.

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