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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields (country, AUM, strategies) and corpus coverage, but omits result-count/pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause 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 simple read-only search with no output schema, telling the agent what comes back (country, AUM, strategies) is genuinely helpful. However, nothing explains the limit parameter or result ordering, which is the main remaining gap for correct invocation.

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 50%: 'query' is documented as 'GP name or fragment' while 'limit' (1-25) is undocumented anywhere. The description reinforces the name-based query but adds no syntax, matching, or cap details, so it does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (European private equity firms / GPs) and even quantifies the corpus (1,200+). The parenthetical '(GPs)' subtly differentiates it from the sibling search_companies, but the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

It says search is 'by name' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among siblings (search_companies, search_deals, who_owns). The agent must infer that this is the GP-lookup route rather than the company/deal route.

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