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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details like budget_max=0 meaning no limit and limit maximum of 20, plus the return structure. However, it does not mention authentication, pagination, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs beyond those details.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return values for a search tool with 5 optional parameters. It lacks mention of how to obtain valid category/region values (e.g., via get_categories/get_regions) and does not specify ordering or pagination beyond the limit, which would make it more complete.

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's 'Args:' section is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter with examples, enumerates category values, and clarifies special values like budget_max=0. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Search Russian construction companies by category, region, and budget', using a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It also lists return fields (name, rating, prices, website, phone), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_projects or get_company.

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 clear context for what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as find_best_companies or smart_match. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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