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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the match fields and the 50-row cap, which is genuinely useful behavior. But it is silent on auth requirements, ordering, whether the cap truncates silently, and the result shape, which for a zero-annotation tool is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering match fields first, then optional filters, then the row cap. No filler, nothing repeated.

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 with no sibling routing, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the query semantics, filter semantics, and result cap. It could go further by describing the returned fields or default limit, but an agent can call it correctly as written.

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 0%, and the description compensates well: it explains that `q` matches name/commercial name/website/address/authority, that region accepts an id or a name, and that service accepts a slug or a name. Those id-vs-name and slug-vs-name details are meaningfully beyond the bare string types in the schema. The only gap is documenting `limit` behavior explicitly.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (entities of the Issafu register) and enumerates the searched fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like entity_lookup, entities_in, or dataset_search.

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 implied: use it when you have a text query and optional region/service filters. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when to prefer entity_lookup (exact match) or entities_in, and no stated prerequisites.

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