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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of matches with identifiersaine and that it is a search operation, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention default limits, result ordering, exact vs. partial matching, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, search criteria, and output purpose without redundancy or filler. Every clause contributes to the agent's ability to invoke the tool.

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 no output schema, the description gives sufficient information: what to search, what is returned, and how results feed into get_company. It could be more complete by mentioning default limits or behavior for empty results, but these are minor given the parameter schema and simple tool complexity.

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?

The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by naming search criteria (name, BIN/IIN, director), which partially overlaps but also extends the schema's 'ФИО' hint. It also clarifies that results carry identifiers useful for get_company)Skip. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both the description and schema, but the schema's min/max constraints make it largely self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly states it searches companies and individual entrepreneurs by name, BIN/IIN, or director, and returns matching records with identifiers. It explicitly references get_company, distinguishing its role as a lookup step that feeds into a subsequent detail retrieval tool.

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?

The description indicates this tool produces identifiers for get_company, making the intended workflow clear: search first, then retrieve full company details. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use cases, but the linkage to get_company provides strong contextual guidance.

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