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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return payload ("fit scores and next best actions"), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, result ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It could still afford one clause of routing guidance without bloat.

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?

With six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. Two undocumented parameters (limit, category) and unspecified return structure leave the agent guessing on a non-trivial 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 coverage is only 17% (only desired_action is documented), so the description must compensate but does not. It names location, language, user_need and desired_action but adds no meaning, format, or constraints, and limit and category are never mentioned at all.

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 and resource ("Find companies") plus the qualifying dimensions (user need, location, language, desired action). The "natural-language user need" framing hints at intent-based retrieval versus keyword search, but it never names search_companies or search_company_directory to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned despite four search-flavored siblings (search_companies, search_company_directory, agent_intent_search). The agent must infer from the name that intent-driven queries belong here.

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