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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so there is no safety contradiction or hidden side effect. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the operation itself, but with annotations present the bar is lower and no extra caveats are required.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core search action. No wasted words, and the filter scope is stated before the outreach rationale.

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 a rich input schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema, a high-level description is largely sufficient. It doesn't explain pagination or webhook behavior, but those are documented in the schema and output schema, so no critical selection information is missing.

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%, and the schema documents page, query, filters, and webhook_url, including a summary of the filter fields. The descrition only says 'name, industry, country, and more', adding no semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('companies in the Tomba database'), and lists common filters. It is clearly a company-list search tool, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like domain_search or company_enrichment.

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?

Gives a clear use context: finding target companies for outreach. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the outreach-prospecting context is enough to route an agent to a broad company search.

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