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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are sorted by score and are relevant for entrepreneurs/companies, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or the exact meaning of 'compare' beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear default usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 straightforward search tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and default behavior. It does not describe the output format, but no output schema exists and the schema explains the parameters well, so the tool is usable without further 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, including defaults and aliases. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and compare') with a clear resource ('business bank accounts in Poland'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like SearchPersonalAccounts by scoping to entrepreneurs and companies. It conveys both the action and the target audience without ambiguity.

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 provides a clear usage context: call with no filters to get all business accounts sorted by score. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like SearchPersonalAccounts, the sibling tool list makes the distinction obvious, and the instruction about no filters is actionable.

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