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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions returned fields and the limit parameter's max value, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or filtering behavior (e.g., whether multiple filters combine). Adequate but not thorough.

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 description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with usage details, and mentions return fields. Since an output schema exists, return values are partly covered. It slightly lacks behavioral context like pagination or error handling, but is largely complete for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter (query, category, region, budget_max, limit) is explained with examples, default behavior, and constraints (e.g., 'Set to 0 for no limit'). This adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Search Russian construction companies by category, region, and budget' and lists returned fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_projects or company_deep_profile by specifying the resource (companies) and filtering dimensions.

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 description provides parameter examples and constraints (e.g., budget_max: 0 for no limit), implying usage for broad searches. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like find_best_companies or contractor_recommendation.

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