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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns a specific structure ({id, title, url}) and that it is identical to search_companies, which implies read-only search behavior. It does not explicitly mention side effects or limitations, but search inherently implies no mutations, and the 'identical' reference provides additional context. Slight gap: no explicit read-only statement.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information—purpose, return shape, and usage guidance—without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured, front-loading the action and then clarifying the alternative.

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 purpose, return format, and usage context comprehensively for a simple search tool. No output schema exists, so the explicit return structure is essential and provided. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, these are unlikely critical gaps. Overall complete enough 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?

The only parameter is 'query'. The description explains that it can be a company name or CUI, so the agent knows what to pass. Although the schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the tool description effectively compensates by defining the query's possible values. Minor gap: no explicit format specification (e.g., string length or encoding) but sufficient for usage.

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 the tool's function: finding Romanian companies by name or CUI, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_companies by noting it is identical except for the specific ChatGPT connector context. This leaves 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use that tool instead unless you are the ChatGPT Apps SDK connector, which requires this exact name.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative, making the decision criteria explicit.

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