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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return fields, the solvency score limitation to SA and GmbH only, and the underlying data sources.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs the most relevant return fields and source context without redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description provides the essential output fields and data provenance. There is no output schema, so listing the return fields helps, though it does not describe pagination or explicitly tie to sibling tools.

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 the schema already documents the query, limit, and canton parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that search is by registered name and that the score applies only to certain legal forms.

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 action ('Search'), a clear resource ('Swiss companies'), and the matching criterion ('by registered name'). It also lists the return fields, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_company and list_new_companies.

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 clearly implies this tool is for searching by a registered name fragment, which gives an agent useful context for when to select it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_new_companies, but the search-by-name framing is sufficiently clear.

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