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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds a genuine trust caveat (topic matches are discovery aids, not a census or verification certificate) and implies history toggles historical names, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset.

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, no padding, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by setting accuracy expectations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For an 8-parameter, zero-required search tool with very low schema coverage, the description covers the meaningful facets; only pagination semantics are left implicit.

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 only 13% (just 'language'), so the description must carry the load, and it does map facets to parameters: name search (query), historical names (history), topic, track and region. It leaves limit, offset and language unaddressed, but the uncovered ones are largely self-describing.

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 ('Find') and resource ('directory companies') with the facets searched (current or historical name, topic, track, region). It is clearly distinguished from get_company and search_resources by the word 'directory companies', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_company for details or search_resources for other artifact types. The closing caveat limits trust in topic matches but is a coverage disclaimer, not usage guidance.

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