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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a result cap ('Up to 50 rows') and substring matching semantics across multiple fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the cap, or the read-only nature of the operation.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the matching scope is front-loaded and the row cap is stated tersely. The enumerated field list is dense but each item earns its place.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers query scope, optional filters, and result size adequately. What a returned row contains is left implicit, though the entities_schema sibling can fill that 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: q is defined as a contains-match across five fields, region accepts an id or name, service accepts a slug or name, and limit is bounded at 50 rows. Only the limit's default behavior is left unspecified.

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 entities in the Asbestos Survey Cost register) and enumerates the exact fields matched by the query, so an agent can tell it apart from singular lookups like entity_lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as entities_in or entities_export, which keeps it short of 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 implies free-text search usage but never states when to choose this over entity_lookup, entities_in, or entities_export, nor any preconditions. An agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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