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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses hard taxonomy filtering, unmatched specialism behavior, the all-unknown case yielding zero results plus a hint, budget_band's conflict-based exclusion, the 20-result cap, ranking, and the totalMatched field. This is unusually transparent.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then filter semantics, then caveats, output shape, and a pointer to valid values. Every sentence adds necessary information, though the first long sentence packs many clauses and could be slightly harder to parse.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers input semantics, edge cases, result limits, returned fields, and where to find valid enum values. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully explain target_industry, specialisms, the two radius modes, within_km, budget_band semantics, and the output fields. It does not elaborate on limit or the exact enum values, though it points to categories://list for those, so it is strong but not maximal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Zoek Nederlandse marketingbureaus') and enumerates the exact filter dimensions. It clearly positions this as a multi-criteria search returning a ranked list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_agency or get_agency_profile even without naming them.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on how to use the filters, including the optional radius alternatives and the instruction to read categories://list for valid values. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives as better fits, so it stops short of a 5.

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