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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: that matching is forgiving of spacing, punctuation, word order and small typos (site-box behavior) and that results carry name, kind, place, id and corridome.com address. It does not mention result volume, page size or ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The scope and entity list come first, the return shape second, which is the right front-loading for a search tool.

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 a simple, fully-annotated read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus and returned fields — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is result-set mechanics (how many per page, ordering, the 20-page ceiling), which the agent must discover from the schema or by calling.

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 both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description reinforces that the query is a name or part of one, but adds no syntax, escaping or page-window detail beyond what the schema states — the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (every kind of record in the Corridome register), and enumerates the entity types covered — firms, funds, companies, deals, people. The phrase 'every kind of record' implicitly sets it apart from the type-specific siblings (search_firms, search_deals, search_people), but it never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The broad-vs-narrow relationship with search_firms / search_deals / search_people, and with get_search_matches / keep_search_matches, is only implied by 'every kind of record'. An agent can infer the intended role, but the description does not route it.

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