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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description instead adds genuinely new behavior: the exact field set returned and the deliberate exclusion of a company's productions, which prevents over-reading the results. It stops short of describing pagination 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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary lookup modes front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries information.

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 correctly spells out the returned fields, which is the main completeness requirement here. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for page/limit, and no guidance on behavior when a search matches nothing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add real semantics for q (name substring) and category (category slug) that the bare string schemas lack. However, page and limit are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Finds production companies') plus the two lookup modes (name substring or category slug). It does not name or contrast itself with the sibling get_company/search_productions, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the scope is unambiguous.

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: the tool is for locating companies, and the closing clause ('a company's productions are not included') hints that production lookups belong elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as search_productions or get_company.

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