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 does disclose the return payload (slugs, profile links, agent files, functions, contact endpoints), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it omits pagination/limit behavior, result ranking, and any auth or rate-limit expectations.

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 the search facets front-loaded ahead of the return description. 'Structured discovery for agents' is slightly throwaway framing, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

A five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to work harder. Listing return fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the description never covers result count/pagination or explains how the free-text query interacts with the structured facet filters.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, region, category, and function_name with examples. The description's enumeration of the same facets ('company name, service, category, region and available function') adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema provides, and the limit parameter is unaddressed.

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 clear verb (search) and resource (company directory) and enumerates the searchable facets, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very close sibling search_companies, leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 opening phrase 'Structured discovery for agents' gestures at context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (search_companies, agent_intent_search). The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the sibling names.

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