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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds two things annotations cannot: an auth prerequisite ('requires a free Messe Atlas account, sign in when prompted') and the return shape ('closest matches with a similarity score'). It stops short of covering ranking/score behavior or limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the auth requirement, then purpose, examples, return value, and the alternative in four tight sentences. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return format (matches plus similarity score). All parameters are schema-documented, auth is disclosed, and the sibling routing is explicit. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so each of the three parameters (kinds, query, country) is already documented with format hints. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond reinforcing the natural-language style of `query`, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resources (companies and events) with a clear scope qualifier: 'by meaning rather than keywords'. The contrast with keyword/exact-name search makes it distinct from the many search_* siblings.

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 routes the agent: 'Use search_* for exact names' names the alternative family and the condition that selects it. Concrete example queries ('flame-retardant composites suppliers') make the intended input style unmistakable.

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