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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the matching fields, the slim-record output behavior, the effect of omitting `query`, and the relationship to get_company. It does not explicitly mention read-only semantics or possible ordering/pagination, but the behavior described is clear and non-contradictory.

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 with no filler. The core search behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is placed right after the output behavior, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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?

The description is adequate for calling the tool, but there is no output schema and 'slim records with a trimmed brief' is vague about the returned fields. For a search tool, an agent would benefit from knowing what fields appear in the slim record, plus any ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit default already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful param context beyond the schema, especially the free-text/industry combination and the behavior of omitting `query`. It does not add much about `limit`, but the schema already documents its constraints.

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 action ('Search'), a clear resource ('companies tracked by Venture Atlas'), and the filtering dimensions (free text and/or industry). It also distinguishes itself from get_company by noting it returns slim records rather than full profiles.

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?

Directly routes the agent to get_company for full profiles, setting an explicit condition for choosing the sibling tool. The instruction to omit `query` to list every company in an industry provides a concrete alternative usage pattern.

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