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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful domain caveat, "Registration does not establish creditworthiness," that guards against over-reading results; pagination/row behavior is only implied by the limit parameter.

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, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded before the invocation rule and the caveat. Every clause carries information.

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, so the agent must infer the return shape, but the limit parameter and "maximum rows to return" make that clear enough. With annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description leaves little an agent needs missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining how parameters combine — q alone, filter alone as a slice browse — which the schema does not state. It does not clarify whether q plus a filter intersects or which wins.

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 the RBI NBFC register") plus the exact search dimensions (name/CIN substring, classification, regulation layer). No sibling tool covers this register, so no disambiguation is needed, but the scope is unambiguous on its own.

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?

"Supply q or a filter; a filter without q browses that slice" gives concrete invocation patterns and explains the browse-vs-search modes. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, 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.