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

Annotations give openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and notably readOnlyHint=false, which conflicts mildly with the description's framing of this as a read. The description does add real value ('never registers or pays', returns quote IDs and 'structured pending decisions'), but the idempotency clause is self-defeating boilerplate ('obey the tool-specific retry key or guarantee; if none is stated, inspect refreshed state') and the confirmation paragraph enumerates generic categories (read, reversible save, fact record, plan refresh) without saying which applies here.

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?

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the capability and return shape. However the Canonicality/Idempotency/Confirmation block is formulaic filler that references an unavailable 'stated above' context and inflates the definition without adding tool-specific detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists return contents and the safety boundary ('never registers or pays'). But it leaves the nested _corply_context param unexplained and its prerequisites are unspecific, so an agent lacks a fully actionable picture.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema, but the nested _corply_context object (id/receipt) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description offers no parameter guidance at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (standard .com, .co, .io, .net, .org names Corply can register), and the second sentence enumerates what comes back (offers, prices, quote IDs, prefills). It is clearly distinguishable from name-checking and checkout siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The only routing context is 'Prerequisite: authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above' - a dangling self-reference that carries no information in a standalone description. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over check_company_names, check_email_domain, or start_company_domain_checkout.

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