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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: anonymous vs. authenticated access levels affect result richness, and sector aliases resolve to canonical slugs with a _meta field. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 three sentences that front-load the core purpose, include examples, and cover key behavioral nuances. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 56-sector enum, output schema exists), the description covers the most critical aspects: auth-level differences, alias resolution, and usage examples. However, it does not clarify which 10 countries or explain the city/country filtering behavior beyond the examples, leaving minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the sector parameter uses a closed vocabulary with alias resolution, that aliases resolve to canonical slugs, and that the response includes _meta.sector_resolved_from. This extra context about parameter behavior goes beyond the schema's enum listing.

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 identifies the resource ('verified entities across 10 countries') and action ('search'), with specific filters (name, keyword, country, city, sector) and example queries. It is specific and actionable, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like entity_lookup or get_competitors, which would justify a 5.

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 usage examples ('find me a dentist in Madrid') and notes that the sector parameter has a closed vocabulary with alias resolution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives (e.g., entity_lookup for exact lookups) are more appropriate, leaving usage implied rather than directed.

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