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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a search and discloses the return structure (company name, Cyborg Score, one-line strategic profile, URL). While it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, that is implied by 'Search' and the described outputs, which is sufficient for a search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return details, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value and the result is compact and well-structured.

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 description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. The parameters are simple and fully described in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed. It could benefit from a note on the limit behavior, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by name or industry keyword' which aligns with the query parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't mention the limit parameter at all, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 states 'Search AskCyborg's corpus of company research by name or industry keyword', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the tool to 'Use this first' for company research, making it the entry point before other specialized tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first when the user mentions a company you want to research, or to discover companies in a category', providing clear context and a preferred usage scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is specific enough to direct appropriate tool selection.

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