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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavior: it will not determine based on name alone, returns multiple candidates, and returns scores by basis. However, it does not describe the actual response envelope, cursor/pagination behavior, or error cases, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior in one sentence, adds an important caveat about name-only queries in the second, and then provides illustrative JSON examples. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a dual-mode tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input modes and basic behavior. But it omits the exact response shape, how nextCursor is used, and when to prefer sibling tools. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's examples group parameters into confirmation vs candidate modes, which is mildly useful, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 performs two separated functions: exact confirmation by corporate number and candidate search by name/location. It gives concrete request examples for both modesches. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_corporate_by_name or search_corporate_by_number.

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 examples imply mode selection: use corporateNumber for exact confirmation, or name/prefecture/limit for candidate search. But the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over sibling search tools, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives.

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