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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main contribution is the disclosure that results are 'ranked by deterministic identity-match confidence' and that it returns candidate matches. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations and reassures the agent about stability and ordering.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action, resource, fields, output, and usage timing are all 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety semantics, the description is complete enough for invocation. It explains the tool's role relative to analysis and due diligence, though it could have explicitly contrasted it with get_oman_company_profile for fully unambiguous sibling routing.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains that query can be a name or registration number and explicitly mentions governorate, wilayat, and industry as filter fields. Only 'limit' is not described, but its purpose is reasonably inferable from the schema's min/max constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('structured Oman business records'), lists the searchable fields, and states the output ('candidate companies ranked by deterministic identity-match confidence'). It clearly differentiates itself from analysis/profile tools by framing this as the identity-lookup step before analysis or due diligence.

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 says to use this tool before company analysis or due diligence when the exact company identity is uncertain, and for finding candidates by name or registration number. It provides strong context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or describe when to use get_oman_company_profile instead.

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