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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: server-side indexing, data-only responses, pagination with total and facets. It stops short of noting limits beyond the schema-level caps or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences that all carry information; the scoping warning and the return-shape statement are the highest-value parts. The trailing URL recommendation is slightly less essential but not wasteful.

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 an 11-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers the searchable surfaces and the response shape (paginated list, total, facets) so an agent need not explain returns itself. The main residual gap is undocumented non-filter params like attendance and tags.

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 only 9% (only 'query' is documented), so the description carries most of the burden. It names the axes that map to industries/capabilities/products/roleFamilies/customerSegments/company, but leaves tags, attendance, limit, and offset unexplained beyond the schema's own enum/defaults.

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+resource (company search) and enumerates the filter dimensions it indexes: industry, capability, product, role family, customer segment, exact aliases. 'Data-only server-side indexed' plus 'returns only a paginated match list' clearly separates it from siblings like search_people or search_guide.

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 concrete anti-pattern ('do not fetch all companies to filter client-side') and disambiguates a semantic trap ('role families are discovery categories, not current vacancies'). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as find_networking_targets.

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