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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results contain 'basic facts' plus the registration number, which is useful return-value context given there is no output schema. It does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy), pagination, or what happens when no match is found.

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 short sentences with no filler; the scope and searchable keys come first and the downstream-use hint closes it. Every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what is returned and its purpose for chaining into other tools. Gaps remain around the undocumented limit parameter and matching semantics, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 67%: query and country are documented, limit is not. The description's mention of name-or-registration-number and the country list largely repeats schema content, and it says nothing about the limit parameter's range or default. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Find companies') with explicit geographic scope (Slovakia, Czechia, Poland, Romania) and searchable keys (name or registration number). The closing clause distinguishes it from the retrieval siblings (get_company, get_financials, get_risk) by positioning this as the lookup entry point.

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?

'Returns ... the registration number to use with the other tools' tells the agent this is the first step in a workflow and that downstream tools consume its output. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over screen_name or check_vat, but the sequencing hint gives clear usage context.

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