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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the cost of 1 query and summarizes the output (AS numbers and prefixes), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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: the first states purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance, the third notes cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the key functionality is front-loaded.

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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description adds just enough operational detail (cost, usage routing) to make the tool fully usable without missing critical context.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'name' parameter with description, constraints, and examples (100% coverage). The main description repeats the case-insensitive behavior already in the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond that.

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 clearly states a specific action (find organizations by name substring) and the returned data (AS numbers and announced prefixes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pwhois_registry_record by focusing on name-based search versus record retrieval by ID.

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 explains when to use this tool: to find an organization from its name, and directs the agent to pwhois_registry_record once an org ID or other handle is obtained. This gives clear routing among sibling tools.

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