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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), while the description adds only the HTTP endpoint. It does not add behavioral context such as partial-match semantics, pagination behavior, or what the response contains beyond what the schema and annotations already state.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple search 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?

The tool is simple and the schema is rich, but with no output schema the description does not explain the return shape or pagination response. It also omits sibling differentiation, which matters given list_companies, search_all, and other search_* tools.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including 'name' as full or partial company name and pagination details. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find companies') and clarifies the search key ('by name'), which distinguishes it from get-company operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_companies or search_all, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among search tools.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the condition for using this tool rather than listing or fetching by ID. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives such as list_companies or search_all.

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