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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by projecting the response fields (id, name, kind, city, state, corridome.com address) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about matching behavior, result ordering, or empty-result handling.

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 waste, with the searchable dimensions front-loaded and the return shape summarized second. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is guidance on result limits/pagination and on choosing this tool over get_firm for detail lookups.

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% and the property descriptions are rich, including the kind enum meanings and the SEC-number formats accepted by query. The description only restates the same dimensions and omits the limit parameter entirely, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 and resource ("Find firms in the Corridome register") and enumerates the searchable dimensions: name, short name, SEC number, kind, state. It is clearly a search/list tool versus the get_firm sibling, though it never names get_firm to draw that contrast 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Find" and the searchable fields; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_firm (which presumably returns full firm detail) or the other search_* siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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