eu_company_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful behavioral facts: the service is free, requires no API key, and a single call can span all seven registers. But it does not disclose result shape, ordering, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking without an output schema.

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 short sentences deliver the core action, target regions, the required parameter, cost/auth characteristics, and the key optional-country behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 low-complexity read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, this description covers the essential selection and invocation context: target countries, name matching, optional country, and auth requirements. The lack of an output schema and explicit sibling differentiation prevents it from being fully complete, but those are minor gaps here.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes name, country, and max_results clearly. The description mainly restates that lookup is by name and that country can be omitted, so it adds little beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 a specific verb and object — 'Search the national company registers' — and immediately scopes it to seven named countries and by-name lookup. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling eu_company_by_number and narrower nl_company_search 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?

It gives clear context: use this when searching company registers by name in the listed countries, and explicitly explains that omitting country searches all seven. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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