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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool costs $0.01 USDC via x402 and returns 5 ranked results, which is meaningful. However, it does not describe rate limits, source freshness, failure modes, or whether any authentication beyond x402 payment is needed.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the key facts: result count, result type, use cases, and cost. Every phrase adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers what it returns, how many results, why to use it, and the cost. It lacks detail on output structure and query syntax, but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single query parameter. It never explains what should go in `query`—company name, natural-language prompt, URL—or how the query affects ranking. The schema provides only length constraints.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Find 5 ranked company and corporate-web results.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like web_search and news_search by scoping to companies and corporate web content, and even states representative use cases.

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 gives clear intended contexts: market research, vendor discovery, and diligence. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes some alternatives inferable.

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