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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses a concrete price ($0.002 USDC on Base), the settlement rule that only successful reads are charged, and that invalid input, not-found and upstream errors cancel payment. That is exactly the kind of cost/auth context an agent needs. It still omits rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, and latency/retry expectations.

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: what it searches, why you'd call it, then cost/settlement terms. Front-loaded with the capability and zero filler; the parenthetical pricing sits at the end where it belongs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the exact return fields (ticker, legal name, CIK). Payment is covered thoroughly. The remaining gap is result-set behavior — ordering, whether limit caps at 25 with no offset, and what a zero-result response looks like — for a 3-parameter tool this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so q, limit and paymentSignature are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces that matching is on ticker or name but adds no syntax, normalization, or partial-match rules, and never mentions paymentSignature at all despite describing the payment model in prose.

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 precisely bounded resource (~10,000 SEC-registered US public companies), match keys (ticker or name), and the fields returned (ticker, legal name, CIK). The closing clause positions it as the lookup step feeding the other company_* siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from company_profile or company_filings.

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 phrase 'to use with the other company tools' gives clear context: call this first to resolve a ticker/CIK, then hand that identifier to the other company endpoints. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to call next or when not to use this tool, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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