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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool performs a search, returns results, or has any other side effects. It only describes the content of the register, not the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely short, but it is a sentence fragment without a predicate. It is compact but under-specified, failing to communicate the action. The structure is poor because it lacks a verb and doesn't earn its place as a complete description.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether filters are required, or any limitations. An agent would have to infer behavior from the parameter names and title, leading to potential misuses.

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?

The schema has two optional parameters (client, lobbyist) with zero description coverage. The description hints at 'firms' and 'clients', which likely map to the parameters, but it does not explicitly explain which parameter corresponds to which field or how to filter effectively. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource (ORCL register) and the type of data (firms/clients), but it is a noun phrase rather than a statement with an explicit verb like 'searches' or 'lists'. The title provides the verb, but the description itself does not clearly state the tool's action, distinguishing it from siblings only implicitly through the named register.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., search_acoba, search_contracts). The description implies that it is for lobbying register data, but it does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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