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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data coverage (21.2M officer records) and the three role types searched, adding substantive behavioral context. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but the coverage detail is meaningful. A 4 is appropriate since it goes beyond the schema without being exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete use cases and a data scale stat. No wasted words, though the use-case list is slightly repetitive in intent. Efficient and well-ordered.

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 read-only lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides purpose, use cases, and coverage scale. It's adequate for a search tool of this nature, though it could mention result ordering or the limit param behavior beyond the schema.

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 the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'named person' aligning with the name parameter and the three role types, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Find which companies a named person is an officer, director or registered agent of') and clearly delineates the function from siblings like private_ceo_search (which narrows to CEO titles). It enumerates the three role types it covers, making the scope precise.

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 gives explicit use cases: checking if a counterparty is who they claim, mapping other entities behind one operator, and finding all companies a person controls before signing. These are concrete when-to-use scenarios. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives/exclusions, but given the sibling context (ceo_search, entity, resolve), the use cases distinguish it well.

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