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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description stays consistent. It adds useful context beyond annotations: Foundaree is new, results may be few or none, and the agent should say so rather than guess. This is genuine behavioral guidance that structured fields do not provide.

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 four sentences with no filler: purpose and examples first, usage guidance, return shape, data-sparsity caveat, and related-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place and the structure supports quick agent comprehension.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the return envelope and item fields, so the agent knows what to expect. It covers what to search, how to frame results, and which sibling tool handles open roles, making it complete for a simple two-parameter search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with meaningful descriptions for both the query and limit parameters, including defaults and bounds. The description reinforces query semantics with examples but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action: 'Search public company and organization pages on Foundaree' by name, activity, or city, and gives concrete query examples. It also distinguishes itself from person search ('rather than one person') and from open-roles search by pointing to search_opportunities.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: when the user needs a company or team rather than a single person. It also routes company open roles to search_opportunities. It does not explicitly name search_people as the alternative for person lookups, but the contrast is clear enough.

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