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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it searches active entities by default, accepts county aliases (with errors for unknown counties), and uses opaque cursor pagination. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral notes and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only cover safety, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main use case, the default behavior, the inactive flag, pagination, and clear guidance on when to use sibling tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that county aliases are accepted and unknown counties produce errors, and that cursor pagination is opaque. These clarifications go beyond the schema descriptions, which simply list valid values or describe the cursor as 'opaque'. The mention of include_inactive aligns with the parameter but doesn't add extra semantics.

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 searches active legal entities by current or former name or registry code. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (get_company for full card, find_companies for filters), making the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'search' and resource 'legal entities' are specific.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you have a name or a code') and when to use alternatives (get_company for one code's full card, find_companies for filters). Also explains include_inactive for non-active statuses. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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