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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: results are only identifiers, not full profiles; authorization and billing are delegated to the caller's OpenAny gateway; and out-of-range top_k silently falls back to the default rather than erroring. It does not state pagination, rate limits, or explicitly that the operation is read-only.

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 verb, resource, and purpose, followed by parameter behavior and the credentials caveat. No filler, and the 'first' cue appears early where it drives tool selection.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior and returns, and it does address return scope, parameter edge cases, and auth/billing. It leaves the exact shape of the returned identifiers unstated, which for a simple two-parameter lookup is a minor 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description restates name as required and top_k's default, range, and out-of-range fallback, mirroring the schema rather than adding semantic detail (e.g., what matching behavior 'name keywords' implies). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Search for candidate enterprises by enterprise-name keywords') and explains the point of the call (retrieving enterprise IDs and unified social credit codes). It also scopes the output ('basic identifiers... rather than complete enterprise details'), which separates this lookup tool from the many sibling enterprise-detail tools that operate on an 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?

The phrase 'obtain their enterprise IDs and unified social credit codes first' implicitly routes the agent to use this as the prerequisite step before calling the enterprise-detail siblings, which is real guidance. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., when an ID is already known).

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