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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is 'cursor-paginated' and costs 10 Zooq credits per request. This is the kind of operational detail that helps an agent calibrate cost and paging behavior, though it could go further by describing result-set shape.

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 short and front-loaded: scope first, pagination second, cost last. There is no wasted text. The only minor issue is that the second and third clauses are sentence fragments, though they remain easy to scan and parse.

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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the core search intent plus pagination and cost. However, it fails to explain the key selection distinction from search_companies_live and does not mention the 'dataset'-style nature behind the tool. For a search-oriented tool with many siblings, that missing routing context is a real gap.

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?

The input schema covers all 13 parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'name or website with firmographic filters' adds only a thin layer on top of what the schema already states; it does not clarify any parameter behavior or format that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 action ('search organizations') and the main input dimensions: name, website, and firmographic filters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the near-twin sibling search_companies_live; the cursor-pagination and credit-cost notes hint at a dataset-style search but do not make the distinction explicit.

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 says what kind of search the tool performs but offers no guidance on when to choose it over search_companies_live, companies_universal_name_to_id, or companies_name_lookup. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing information, so the agent has to infer the right choice from sibling names.

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