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

The description contradicts the openWorldHint annotation. The annotation sets openWorldHint=false (closed world), but the description explicitly states 'Absence here is not absence in the state registry,' indicating the tool's data is incomplete relative to the registry. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines the annotation's reliability.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The English text is efficient, but the Russian translation is redundant and adds no information, slightly increasing length without benefit.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers key aspects: scope (collected entities), exclusion (sole proprietors), and the caveat about absence. It omits details on limit behavior, but the output schema fills return structure. The openWorldHint contradiction is the main 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?

The description explains that the query parameter accepts a name fragment or UNP, adding meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions. However, the limit parameter is not mentioned, and the description doesn't clarify input formats or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 action (search) and resource (collected Belarusian legal entities) and specifies the search criteria (name fragment or UNP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing search over direct lookup, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 usage for searching entities by name or UNP but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over check_counterparty or lookup_company. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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