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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is paid and that the API returns exactly one company, but it does not describe side effects, billing behavior beyond 'paid', failure modes, or rate-limit implications.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exact-one-returned caveat is a necessary behavioral detail stated efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: paid nature, PDL SQL, company scope, and single-result behavior. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings like search_people and enrich_company, but the core context an agent needs to invoke it is present.

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 zero description coverage for the sql parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds that the parameter holds a PDL SQL company-search query, which is meaningful, but it gives no syntax details, examples, or supported SQL constructs. This is partial but not complete compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 identifies a specific action (prepare a paid PDL SQL company-search request) and the resource being searched (companies), and it adds the key constraint that exactly one company is returned. It is clearly separated from search_people by the 'company-search' scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for company search via PDL SQL, and expect exactly one company in the result. It does not spell out when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_people or enrich_company, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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