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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it is a public data scraper ('no API key, no login, no proxies'), and mentions cost ($0.02/call). No contradictions are present, and the description reinforces the safe, read-only nature.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, source, time window, constraints, and cost. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the low complexity of this tool (3 parameters, no output schema, safe annotations), the description covers the most important aspects: what it does, where it gets data, cost, and limitations. It does not explain the return format, but with no output schema, the agent might need to infer structure. Still, for a simple search tool, this is sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema: it mentions keyword and time window but doesn't elaborate on parameter formatting or behavior beyond what the schema already specifies. No significant added value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool finds newly-incorporated UK companies matching a keyword. It specifies the data source (Companies House), the time window (last ~60 days by default), and key constraints (no API key needed). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like company-hiring-radar or company-lookup which have different scopes.

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 description provides clear context: it is for finding recent UK companies via keyword, with no authentication needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the behavior is well-defined enough that the agent can infer appropriate use cases (e.g., not for non-UK companies or old registrations).

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