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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value by explaining ignoring of punctuation/accents and the typical workflow for chaining with other tools, which are behavioral details beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, and additional details are provided in a logical order. It is not overly verbose, though the parenthetical chaining notes could be slightly more compact.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and having several parameters, the description covers essential usage context, chaining instructions, and query behavior. It misses parameter details for limit and verified, but overall provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 20% (only 'q' has a description). The description adds meaning for 'q' (example and matching behavior) and mentions city/type as filters, but does not explain 'limit' or 'verified'. This partially compensates for the low 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?

The description clearly states it searches agencies and developers by name, city, or type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_listings and search_projects by explaining the workflow of how to use this tool to find a company and then search for listings or projects.

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 provides when to use (to answer 'properties by <agency>'), and gives alternatives for developers (also check search_projects). Includes an example query and notes that punctuation/accents are ignored.

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