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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive/no-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: filters are ANDed, classification fields match as substrings, npwp storage format is inconsistent, date filters apply to listing/inception date, and the return omits profile lists.

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 paragraphs: identity/scope, filter semantics, return shape plus handoff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds information an agent needs (substring semantics, tax-id format warning, sibling routing).

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 supplies the return shape ({ data, total, page, limit }) and notes the omission of profile lists, which is exactly what is needed. It also covers the two most error-prone filters (npwp format, classification matching). Pagination behavior beyond the field names is not described, a minor gap.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains that id is the ticker, sector/subSector/industry/subIndustry use IDX-IC with substring matching, npwp is the tax id with format caveats, and listedFrom/listedTo bind to listing date. sortBy/sortOrder/page/limit remain undocumented in prose, but their enums and defaults in the schema make them largely self-explanatory.

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 ('Search companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange') with concrete scope details (ticker as id, ANDed filters). It also differentiates itself from the sibling Idx_get_company by naming what that tool covers instead (shareholders, subsidiaries, board).

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?

Routes the agent to Idx_get_company when profile lists are needed, which is a clear alternative-tool signal. It does not state negative conditions (e.g. minimum query length or when NOT to search), but the context needed to pick between this and its sibling is present.

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