company_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does so well: it discloses the source (GLEIF), the coverage scope (LEI holders only), and the returned data categories. It does not mention matching behavior or rate limits, but the most decision-relevant limitation is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler: purpose and returned fields, use case, and critical limitation. Each sentence earns its place without repeating schema content.

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 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is largely complete: it names the fields returned and the main exclusion. It could add partial-match behavior or the possibility of multiple matches, but those are inferable from the schema and the search semantics.

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 description does not need to re-explain parameters. It reinforces that `name` is the search key, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the verb (Find), the resource (a company by name in GLEIF), and the data fields returned, including legal form, status, address, national registration number, and LEI. The LEI-scope caveat also helps distinguish it from sibling company-registry tools.

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?

Provides a concrete use case (identifying a trademark holder) and an explicit limitation (only entities that hold a LEI, many SMEs excluded), so an agent knows when not to rely on it. It does not name a specific sibling tool as a fallback, which would make routing fully explicit.

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