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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds genuine value with the prerequisite (a loaded FactLot Registry) and the negative scope, but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or how partial-name matching behaves.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the exclusion and prerequisite; no filler. The parenthetical defining FactLot Registry is mildly verbose but carries real context for an agent unfamiliar with the platform.

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 two-parameter, fully-documented read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it finds, who is excluded, and the prerequisite data source. The only meaningful gap is what a result record contains (e.g., citing source file and record), which an agent must discover by calling.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with min/max and default. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify whether query supports partial/substring matching or case sensitivity, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find registered business entities') and enumerates the covered entity types (LLCs, LPs, corporations), which tells an agent exactly what domain this covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby registry/id tools, but the 'by name' qualifier separates it from registry_search_address and the id_* family.

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?

Provides a clear use context (name-based entity lookup) plus an explicit exclusion: natural persons are not searchable, which prevents a common mis-invocation. It also flags the FactLot Registry prerequisite, but names no alternative tool for when the lookup target is a person or an address.

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