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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content ('firmographic profiles for matching employers') and the supported matching modes for name (partial match, English or Chinese), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or that all filters combine as an AND query.

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 short sentences ordered as purpose, return value, then use case — nothing redundant and the core capability is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main filters, the return shape, and the intended use case. Minor gaps remain around the unmentioned headquarters_city filter and result-limiting/pagination expectations, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only the partial-match/dual-language nuance for name and leaves headquarters_city and limit unmentioned, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 for companies') and enumerates the primary filter dimensions (name in English or Chinese, industry, size tier, macro industry), plus the return shape ('firmographic profiles for matching employers'). It does not explicitly contrast with the single-company sibling get_company_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use for employer discovery and competitive intelligence' names a use context but is broad and offers no when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer from sibling names that get_company_info is the path for a single known company rather than a multi-company search.

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