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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data freshness ('live') and the breadth of coverage (22 jurisdictions), but says nothing about pagination, result caps beyond the schema's limit, rate limits, or that an API key is required for access.

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 no filler; it leads with the action and resource and closes with the scope metrics. Every clause carries information.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description establishes the domain adequately but omits usage routing, pagination behavior, and auth notes. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer invocation strategy.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how 'stage' or 'has_contracts' interact), so it earns the baseline 3.

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 ('search and filter') and a concrete resource ('European insolvency, liquidation, and bankruptcy filings'), plus scale (105,000+) and coverage (22 jurisdictions). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_distressed_auctions and search_succession_targets by resource domain, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It neither says when to prefer this over get_company_details nor when to reach for search_distressed_auctions instead. The only usage signal is the resource scope itself.

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