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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool returns (matching companies with Mycelium Score and slug handle) and the optional country filter, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe matching semantics (fuzzy vs exact), result ordering, pagination limitations, or empty-result behavior, so there are clear gaps for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 compact and efficient: two sentences that front-load the action and scope, then state the return value and the optional filter. No irrelevant information is present, although it could have been slightly more expansive on usage context without becoming bloated.

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 simple 3-parameter search tool with high schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, the key return values, and the optional filter. The mention of the slug being 'used by the other tools' connects it to the sibling tools and provides useful workflow context. It lacks an explicit output schema and some behavioral detail, but overall the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and country with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that search is by name and country is an optional filter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search the Mycelium emissions database for companies by name.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling getter tools by noting that it returns the slug handle used by the other tools, so an agent can recognize search-entities as the discovery step rather than a retrieval or detail tool.

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 implies usage: it is the tool that returns slugs for other tools, so it should be used first to identify entities. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get-entity-profile or get-emission-figures, leaving some inference to the agent. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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