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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the search is literal (no query-language semantics) and results are bounded by pagination, and it explicitly rules out arbitrary SQL or URL fetching.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The scope of searchable fields is front-loaded and the safety constraint follows efficiently; every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a read-only search tool with fully annotated safety semantics, but it omits what the results look like (no output schema exists) and says nothing about the kind/limit/offset controls, so an agent must infer result shape and pagination behavior entirely from the input schema.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. It lists the fields that text can match, but never connects them to 'query', nor explains what 'kind', 'limit', or 'offset' do. With four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') plus the resource and the exact searchable fields (facility/company names, slugs, operators, localities, country codes). It is distinguishable from get_company/get_facility by the discovery-vs-retrieval verb, but the description never acknowledges the siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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: 'literal text search' signals keyword discovery rather than lookup-by-ID, which is the natural counterpart to get_facility/get_company. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the sibling retrieval tools, and no guidance on choosing between the 'all'/'facilities'/'companies' kinds.

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