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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that only 'public' profiles are searched, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or what an empty match returns for a search endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope and searchable dimensions are all delivered immediately without repetition.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the query semantics but leaves result shape, limit behavior and sibling differentiation unaddressed. An agent can call it, but with avoidable ambiguity about which search tool to use.

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 0%, so the schema gives no help beyond names and types. The description partially compensates by clarifying what the required 'query' string matches against (name, category, region, service), but the 'limit' parameter with its default of 5 is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (public agentready.ch company profiles) and enumerates the searchable facets: name, category, region, service. It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling search_company_directory, leaving the agent to guess which search endpoint to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named sibling search_company_directory or read_company_profile. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line summary.

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