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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine value beyond them: what the results contain (source links, review dates, arrival information, availability caveats) and the honesty caveat that availability is not guaranteed. It stops short of describing result shape or result-volume limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, return contents second, scope caveat and parameter hint last. Every sentence adds information and nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description steps in by summarizing the return contents, so an agent knows what to expect. The missing pieces are the meaning of limit and any guidance on defaults, which leaves a small gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 only 50% (kind and limit are undocumented in the schema). The description partially compensates: it names the record kinds (company, service, place) that map to the kind enum and gives a usage rule for country_code. The limit parameter remains unexplained in both places.

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) plus the exact resource (AI MAXX published company/service/place passports) and the query basis (customer need or business name). The scope statement ('limited to its listed businesses') separates it from a generic web search, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule ('Specify country_code when the user names a country') and two useful exclusions (not the whole web, no availability guarantee). However, it never routes the agent between this and relevant siblings such as get_passport or resolve_customer_need, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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