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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it explains the dataset is BinaSmart's curated company directory and that results include sub-city, website, hiring status and the linked bina.et page with nested homes/cars/vacancies. It does not describe matching semantics or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the directory contains before explaining how to search it. Dense but every clause carries information; the long enumeration of result fields in sentence one is the only mildly crowded part.

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 an output schema, full schema coverage and annotations all present, the description only needed to establish entity scope and search/filter mechanics, and it does both. An agent can call this correctly from the definition alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps filters to domain vocabulary ('name or brand' for query, 'kind', 'sub-city' for area, 'hiring' relating to the job board) but largely restates what the schema already documents, and never mentions limit.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (companies listed on BinaSmart), and enumerates what those entities are: real-estate developers, car sellers, domestic-worker agencies and other employers. It also lists the payload each result carries (sub-city, website, hiring flag, bina.et page with homes/cars/vacancies), which cleanly separates it from listing-level siblings like search_properties or search_cars.

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 final sentence ('Search by name or brand, filter by kind and sub-city') tells the agent how to drive the tool but not when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_employer or search_knowledge. No named sibling, no when-not condition, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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