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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description usefully adds that the searchable corpus is a specific curated set of 34,000+ PE-backed companies (implying bounded, curated results), but says nothing about match semantics, ranking, or how many results come back. Adds some value beyond annotations, hence a 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste: verb first, then corpus scope, then the match dimension. Nothing redundant with the title beyond the unavoidable resource name.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool this is close to adequate, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with no output schema the description should say what a result looks like and whether the result set is capped by limit, which it omits.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema and the description reinforces name/fragment matching via 'by name'. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (PE-backed companies) with useful scope qualifiers: the 34,000+ dataset and GP Intel as the source, and that matching is by name. An agent can distinguish this from search_gps and search_deals by domain. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting conditions, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this tool over search_gps/who_owns, and no prerequisites such as exact-match vs fuzzy behavior. Usage must be fully inferred from the name and dataset qualifier.

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