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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns a short list of specific fields plus an accurate total, and it restricts results to approved records. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but those are not central to this read tool.

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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return shape and a field clarification. No sentence is wasted, though the final city/country sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be folded into the first sentence.

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 eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description does important work by summarizing return fields and mentioning the accurate total. It omits details on type, limit/offset, and pagination, but those are fully covered in the schema. The definition is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters well. The description restates the searchable fields and gives city/country examples, but much of that duplicates the schema's own descriptions; it adds little additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (approved FirmLedger company records), lists the searchable facets, and explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_listing as the follow-up call. An agent can tell what this tool does and when it is the right first step without opening the schema.

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 clear context: use this for picking a company before calling get_listing, and use city vs country for place terms. It names the alternative tool but does not state explicit when-not conditions, so it falls just short of the top score.

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