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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context. It clearly indicates a read-oriented search operation ('Find companies') and frames results as public budget signals, but it does not disclose defaults (e.g., upcoming=true), pagination behavior, response shape, or any data-freshness caveats.

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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'public budget signal' qualifier adds context without bloating the text. A minor deduction for the slightly redundant filter list that partially restates schema property names.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description alone is under-specified. It does not explain defaults (upcoming), pagination (limit/offset), value formats for multi-value params (topic, industry), or the meaning of 'tier' and 'city', leaving an agent to infer too much for correct invocation.

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 only 53%, so the description should compensate. It maps loosely to several parameters ('company' to q, 'kind' to kind, 'tier' to tier, 'sector' to industry, 'country' to country, 'dates' to from/to), but it omits many params (event, topic, region, online, limit, offset) and uses 'sector' while the schema names the field 'industry', introducing possible confusion.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find companies sponsoring or exhibiting at events.' It also states the unique angle ('a public budget signal') and enumerates the filter dimensions, making it distinct from sibling tools like search_events and search_speakers without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'a public budget signal' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_events or get_company, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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