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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are limited to approved records, a short list of specific fields is returned, and an accurate total is provided. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits beyond what the schema says.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, followed by return shape, then a focused usage note. The parenthetical return-field list is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and mentioning the accurate total. It also states the approved-records scope and the relationship to get_listing. Pagination details are left to the input schema rather than the description.

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 the parameter baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying the city/country split with examples ("Nairobi" vs "Kenya") and by mapping query to name or keyword, though it does not mention type, limit, or offset.

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), resource (approved FirmLedger company records), and supported filters (name/keyword, category, country, city, verified status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_listing by framing the search as the step before fetching a full listing.

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?

Explicitly says the results are for picking the right company before calling get_listing, and gives a concrete usage rule for city versus country. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like list_categories/list_countries, though the schema partially covers category enumeration.

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