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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with 'Returns canonical URLs suitable for ChatGPT Company Knowledge citation,' which tells the agent about output shape and downstream use, but says nothing about the per-entity limit cap or truncated/empty results.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the entity scope front-loaded and the return characteristic second. Nothing to cut.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and parameter semantics are fully covered in-schema. The description would be complete except for the multi-entity pagination/limit interaction, which only appears in the schema's limit field.

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% and both parameters are well documented in-schema (substring semantics, 255-char cap, default/max for limit). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline for full coverage.

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 a clear scope: five named entity types. This differentiates it in practice from the many per-entity list-*/get-* siblings, though it never names them explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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 cross-entity scope implies the use case (finding records when you don't know which entity type holds them), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. list-companies-tool/get-company-tool guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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