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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: each result is a summary line, not full detail, and the expected follow-up action is get_company. This is useful and non-obvious from the parameters alone.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes: what it searches, how to use it, what it returns, and what to do next. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key missing context: result granularity and the next step for full details. It could specify what fields the summary line contains, but the follow-up guidance mitigates that gap.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds marginal framing (search by name, keyword, sector, or stock exchange) but does not substantially improve on the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource: Korean listed medical AI, biotech, medical device, pharma, and healthcare infrastructure companies. It also distinguishes itself from get_company by noting it returns summary lines and that full detail belongs elsewhere.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to find companies...') and provides sequencing guidance ('Call get_company afterwards for full detail'). It does not explicitly mention when to prefer siblings like search_approvals or get_stock_quote, 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.