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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding match semantics (exact, case-insensitive on street/city), narrowing behavior via house number/postal code, sort order (newest registration first), and the important c/o-line exclusion. It does not discuss result-set size or pagination behavior beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Four compact, front-loaded sentences: identity, matching rules, the c/o exclusion/routing, sort order, and the companion tool. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (physical address only) comes early.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and pagination plus filter formats fully documented in the schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is returned (UIDs), match semantics, ordering, and the sibling to use instead for cluster queries.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds how the filters combine — street/city match exactly and case-insensitively while house number and postal code only narrow the result — which is meaningful semantics not obvious from the per-field descriptions alone.

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 — returning all company UIDs at a physical address — and immediately differentiates itself from find_colocated_companies by scoping to the physical address rather than a c/o cluster. An agent can identify the tool's niche without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (physical street address) versus the alternative (a fiduciary cluster around a shared c/o line → start from a company and use find_colocated_companies), and names a companion tool (get_companies) for retrieving detail. Routing guidance is unambiguous.

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