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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the ranking algorithm (word-overlap first, then name), the low-relevance cutoff (dropped if matching fewer than half the best match's words), and explicit non-inputs (payment, client status, operator ownership), plus the statement that no scores or paid positions exist. That is substantive transparency beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the result behavior and ordering rules, then the follow-up. The ordering sentence is dense but earns its place as behavioral disclosure; a small amount of the ranking detail could be trimmed without loss.

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 no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does ('returns matching offerings with the terms they matched') along with ordering and a follow-up route. It leaves the limit's default/behavior and any pagination semantics unexplained, which is a modest gap.

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 only 33%, and `limit` carries no description in either the schema or the description. The description partly compensates for `query` by showing realistic query strings and framing it as plain-language, but it adds nothing about the limit or the ordering impact of narrowing results.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Plain-language search over the Agent Company Index') and scopes the domain (B2B software products, service providers, agencies). It also routes the agent forward to get_offering. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling discover_offerings, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 clause 'Use when a user is looking for...' plus two concrete example queries gives clear situational context for invocation. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer discover_offerings instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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