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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a major behavioral trait: the search matches NAMES only, not concepts — with a concrete example. However, it doesn't disclose return format, ordering details, or pagination behavior, which leaves some gap for a ranked-search tool with no annotations or 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by sibling-tool differentiation and a critical behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with full schema coverage and rich sibling context. The description explains when to use each sibling and the key behavioral quirk (name-matched, not concept-matched). Minor gap: no mention of ranking rationale or result-ordering behavior, but given the full schema coverage and clear sibling differentiation, this is largely complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the useful note about no industry classification affecting search behavior, but doesn't add further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

States the specific purpose clearly: 'Find US businesses by name when you do not yet know which one you want' with full-text ranked search over 30.6M entities. Distinguishes from private_resolve (identify one specific company) and private_list (NAICS-based industry filtering), clearly defining the resource and verb.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives: use private_resolve when you need one specific company, and use private_list with a naics filter for industry-based searches. Also provides clear when-to-use context: browse candidates or check whether a name exists. The 'roofing returns companies named Roofing' example clarifies a critical usage edge case.

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