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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world; the description adds the commercially decisive behavior an agent cannot infer: $0.002 USDC per successful call, x402 payment across Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. That is auth/payment and cost-transparency context that directly affects whether and how an agent invokes it.

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 filler: capability and scope first, cost/payment second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack, and the highest-value constraints are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, nothing decision-relevant is missing — scope, exclusions, cost, payment rails, and failure charging are all stated, and return fields need no further explanation given the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% — the single 'q' parameter is already documented as a 2–80 character company name. The description's 'searches companies by name' merely restates that, adding no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('searches companies by name') plus the data domain (ImportYeti US import records) and enumerates what comes back (shipment counts, most recent shipment date, address, profile URL). The explicit scope statement 'Company search only, not individual bills of lading' distinguishes it from any shipment/BoL-oriented tool an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

Gives a clear usage boundary ('Company search only, not individual bills of lading'), which functions as an explicit when-not rule and is the main misuse risk for this data domain. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded BoL use case, so it is clear context without full routing.

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