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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful behavior: returns up to 20 results, provides an id for the fetch tool, and includes a citable insurers.global URL. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences deliver scope, result cap, output contents, use case, and a routing instruction. Every clause adds value, and the most selection-relevant information appears first.

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 single-parameter read search with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the searchable universe, result limit, output purpose, and the sibling alternative. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from calling 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter ('Company, group or country name, or part of one.') at 100% coverageable. The description reinforces the accepted entity types, including former company names, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), the exact resource types (licensed insurers, insurance groups, countries, former company names), and geographic scope. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from search_insurers, so an agent can identify which tool to use without opening either schema.

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?

It says this tool is 'Provided for ChatGPT deep research and company knowledge' and explicitly tells agents to 'prefer search_insurers' for ordinary questions. This gives clear selection criteria and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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