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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paged and the underlying endpoint path; it says nothing about match behavior (partial vs exact, which fields are searched), ordering, or empty-result handling.

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 clipped sentences with the core purpose and pagination up front. The raw endpoint path adds little for an agent but costs almost nothing.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotations, this is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. However, an agent still cannot tell what a result contains (IDs? names? which company fields) or how relevance ordering works.

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 already explains page/per_page defaults, ranges, and the 'pass the previous next_page' convention. The description's '?query=' merely restates the required parameter and adds no semantics such as minimum length or matching rules.

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 and resource ('free-text search over companies') and notes it is paged, which distinguishes it from a plain list operation. It never names cats_list_companies or cats_get_company directly, so the distinction from siblings must be inferred from the word 'search'.

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: 'free-text search' signals you should call this when you have text rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to cats_list_companies for enumeration or cats_get_company for a known ID.

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