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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that searching is free and spends no credits, and by stating what the results contain. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and gives a query example, the second delivers the cost-relevant behavior. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers what the query should look like, what results are returned, and the credit behavior. It does not specify result limits or pagination, but the annotations and minimal schema keep that gap minor.

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 schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the query. The tool description adds a concrete example of valid query phrasing, which helps an agent construct a better natural-language query. This is above the schema-only baseline but not extensive.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('global company database'), and the natural-language query style, plus the returned fields (industry, size, location, website). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_company by emphasizing free-form searching rather than entity lookup.

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 when to use it: when the user has flexible, plain-English criteria, which is reinforced with a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when looking up a specific known company.

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