Search Entities

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

Annotations exist (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing 'Costs 2 credits per jurisdiction searched and requires authentication.' This covers cost and auth needs. It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail other side effects, the provided annotations plus cost/auth disclosure are sufficient.

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, front-loaded with purpose and differentiation, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers usage, alternative, and cost/auth without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage boundaries, cost, and authentication. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but the phrase 'Discover candidate businesses' implies the output. It also doesn't mention pagination behavior, though limit/offset schema parameters cover that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for parameters: it clarifies that query is 'partial or fuzzy name' and that jurisdiction affects cost ('per jurisdiction searched'), which goes beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 states the tool 'discovers candidate businesses when the exact entity is UNKNOWN' and explicitly labels it as a 'listing/discovery tool, NOT a verification tool.' This provides a specific verb (discover/search), resource (businesses), and scope (when exact entity is unknown), distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_business.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use only when the user wants to browse or list multiple companies matching a partial or fuzzy name, or does not yet know which specific entity they mean.' It also names the alternative: 'If the user can name one specific company they want to confirm or check, use verify_business instead (ask them for the name first if needed).' This is a clear when/when-not and alternative specification.

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