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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: default limit of 5 results per page and the need to use load_more_companies for additional results. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe the exact return structure.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides examples and pagination guidance without any wasted words.

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 search tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly: it explains what you can filter by, gives example queries, and mentions the pagination behavior. It doesn't describe the return fields, but that is less critical for a search tool when the name implies what is returned.

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?

Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by introducing the key parameter categories (industry, tech stack, funding status, growth signals) and showing examples that imply parameters like location, company_size, and technologies. It also mentions the limit default. However, it does not explicitly explain all 11 parameters, so it is not a complete replacement.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('companies'), and lists the filtering dimensions (industry, tech stack, funding status, growth signals). It also provides two concrete examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_contacts by focusing on 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 description provides clear usage context with examples and explicitly points to the load_more_companies tool for pagination, which is a good alternative reference. However, it does not explicitly exclude other company-related tools like company_intelligence or find_competitors, so it lacks full differentiation guidance.

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