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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals nothing about read-only semantics, authentication needs, result limits, pagination, or how the three criteria combine (AND vs OR / ranking). The mention of an 'indexed' search is the only behavioral hint.

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 tight sentence with the resource and search fields front-loaded and no filler. Brevity comes at the cost of omitted guidance, but the sentence itself is well formed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, but for a three-parameter search with no annotations and zero schema coverage the definition omits how criteria combine, result limits, ordering, and empty-result behavior. Too thin for the tool's flexibility.

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 schema documents none of the three parameters. The description partially compensates by mapping concepts to parameters (name→query, UF→uf, CNAE prefix→cnae), but gives no formats, examples, or explanation of partial/prefix matching behavior.

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 (companies) and names the searchable dimensions (name, UF, CNAE prefix), so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling list_companies or get_company_details, which could plausibly retrieve similar data.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over list_companies, get_company_details, or enrich_company_ai. The word 'indexed' hints at a search-index-backed lookup but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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