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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a ChatGPT connector alias, scopes the search to Norway and UK registers, accepts a free-text query, and returns a condensed result list rather than the full SearchResult. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail error conditions or edge cases.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the first declares the alias and preferred alternative, the second defines the search scope and output, and the third gives the next step. Information is front-loaded and each 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 single-parameter search tool with a rich input schema, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains the alias relationship, scope, accepted query forms, return format, and onward routing to `fetch`. No critical information needed to select or invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with examples and a detailed description of the `query` parameter. The description reinforces the free-text semantics and the three allowed query forms, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (companies in national business registers) and the action (finds from a free-text query), and explicitly identifies the tool as an alias for `search_company`, distinguishing it from its sibling. It also specifies the input forms (name, identifier, name plus country) and the output shape, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells other clients to prefer `search_company` and explains why: it takes an explicit `country` and returns the full SearchResult. It also directs the agent to pass a result's `id` to `fetch`, providing clear routing and follow-up guidance.

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