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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pricing/availability ('Free during beta') and result ordering ('best match first'). It stops short of stating rate limits or result-count behavior beyond what the schema's limit field already carries.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The commercial note ('Free during beta') is front-loaded ahead of the functional content, which is slightly less useful first, but overall efficient.

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 3-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input shape, and return ordering. Given full schema coverage and annotations, only minor gaps remain (no explicit contrast with siblings).

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to company_description and countries ('what it sells, where') but adds no syntax, format, or recall guidance beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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 (match) and resource (company) and describes the output (open public tenders it could bid on). It is clear on its own, but never names or contrasts with siblings like search_tenders or award_history, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 implies how to use it ('describe a company in plain words (what it sells, where)') but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as search_tenders. Usage is inferable from the framing rather than stated.

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