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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It explains exact-contact matching, the matched_by response field, the 25-profile result cap, facet count semantics, and the FCRA restriction for human review only.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, query behavior, response shape, facet behavior, and legal limitation are packed into a compact, front-loaded description with no filler.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers query semantics, response fields, filter behavior, and a critical legal constraint. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 meaningful semantic detail: query can be a name fragment or exact contact value, contact-shaped queries resolve via exact official records, and filters mirror the website's facet rail. This goes beyond the schema without fully unpacking every parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: full-text search across 128 million registered companies in US and Canadian registers. It lists the query dimensions (legal name, officer, phone, email, website), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like register_agent and list_jurisdictions.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: anytime a company search by name, officer, or contact value is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct enough that an agent can make the correct choice from context.

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