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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It discloses neither the return format nor pagination behavior, and 'live only' is mentioned without explaining what 'live' means or that it defaults to true. Nothing about permissions, rate limits, or matching behavior for 'former name' is stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the filter list. Every phrase carries information and there is no filler.

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 read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys scope and filter surface but omits how results come back, how they are ordered or paginated, and what 'live only' actually filters. It is adequate to attempt a call but not to predict its behavior.

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 60%, and the description adds real meaning for the key parameter by clarifying that query matches current OR former names (the schema only says 'Company name or part of it'). It also names the ssic, postal, and live_only filters, but says nothing about limit or about the default/semantics of live_only.

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 with jurisdiction scope: 'Search Singapore companies by current or former name.' This is clearly a search-by-name tool, but it never names or contrasts with its siblings (lookup_uen, new_companies), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The description lists optional filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to reach for lookup_uen (exact UEN lookup) or new_companies instead of a name search, so routing between siblings is left entirely to inference.

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