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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: results are restricted to *published* companies. It says nothing about empty-result behavior, pagination semantics, or the 400 on uncovered countries, all of which remain in the schema only.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or restatement of the name. It is efficient, though its brevity is what leaves the usage and scope gaps rather than any redundancy.

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?

Eight parameters, none required, all richly described in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile; with no output schema the description need not explain return values. What is missing is modest but real: the empty-query case and the fact that this is the only tool for searching rather than listing companies.

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 100%, so the parameter contract is already fully documented including sort defaults, cursor opacity, slug patterns and the parent-category matching rule. The description adds only a coarse mapping ('place' covers city/region/country), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (published quantum companies) plus the three facets it filters on (text, place, category). It is distinguishable from get_listing and the various list_* siblings, though the phrasing 'companies' versus the product-oriented siblings leaves a small ambiguity about whether results are companies or their offerings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of text/place/category signals a faceted search endpoint, and the sibling names imply the search-vs-list split. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_products/list_places, no note that all filters are optional, and no advice on passing slugs obtained from /places or /categories.

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