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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that facts are reviewed and that results include source page and review date provenance, and it enumerates covered domains. It does not clarify search behavior, result limits, permissions, or error handling, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 plus a compact domain list. The action and source are front-loaded, and every part contributes useful selection or coverage information without repetition.

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, but the description gives enough return context by saying facts come with page and review date. It also defines the topical coverage well. It does not explain result ordering or how limit affects completeness, but for a simple search tool it is mostly complete.

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 50%: the required query parameter has a helpful schema description with examples, while limit only has default/min/max constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how limit affects returned facts, so the documented query schema carries most of the burden.

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 ('reviewed Cyprus corporate and tax fact base'), and explains that matching facts are returned with page and review date. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from domain-specific siblings such as cyprus_glossary_lookup or cyprus_company_lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly says to use this before answering any factual question about Cyprus company or tax rules, giving clear usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer sibling tools like the glossary lookup, company lookup, or topic-specific tests, nor does it name exclusions.

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