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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'searches' for companies, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose effects like pagination, result ordering, or that the 'worldwide' flag can override the country filter (which is only noted in the schema). The description offers no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It immediately conveys the core action and key scoping criteria, and every word earns its place. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It lacks guidance on pagination, defaults (e.g., sort default), the interaction between filters, and how it differs from 'get_companies'. An agent would need to open the schema and infer behavior, which is a significant gap for a search 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%, so all parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only a high-level mention of 'keywords' and 'optional country filtering', which doesn't enhance understanding of the other five parameters (benefits, tech_stack, page, sort, worldwide). Since the schema already documents each parameter, a baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('remote-friendly companies'), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_companies', nor does it mention that it's a filtered search with multiple criteria. The mention of 'keywords' and 'optional country filtering' adds specificity, but the lack of contrast with other search tools keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_companies', 'search_jobs', or 'search_talent'. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or how this search complements others. The description leaves the decision of tool selection entirely to inference.

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