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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only search, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them. It explains prefix-first matching, substring fallback with match_mode:'substring', diacritic insensitivity, legal-form handling, exact-match ordering, and that invalid status values are refused rather than ignored.

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 front-loaded and every clause adds meaningful search behavior. It is dense and relies on a long semicolon-separated sentence, but it is not padded or redundant.

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 search tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key invocation quirks well and mentions match_mode. It does not fully describe the return structure beyond that, but it gives enough context to select and use the tool correctly without an output schema.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries the basic parameter documentation. The description still adds useful semantics for name matching and status filtering, though it does not add anything beyond the schema for the limit parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching Estonia's e-Business Register by company name prefix. It clearly distinguishes the tool from ee_company by presenting itself as the way to find a company and obtain a registry code to pass onward.

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 gives clear use cases such as finding Estonian companies named Bolt or obtaining a registry code for ee_company. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with the similar sibling company_register_search, so the routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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