search_companies

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful return details: total matches plus hits with IČO, name, and address. It does not hide side effects or contradict the annotations.

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 first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a compact Args/Returns layout. Every line earns its place without repetition 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the input semantics, limit behavior, and result shape. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by defining 'name' with an example and explaining 'limit' with a range (1-50). This is exactly the semantics an agent needs beyond the bare property names.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('Czech companies'), and the matching mode ('full or partial business name'). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as validate_ico_number or lookup_company, which do exact identifier-based lookups rather than name search.

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 clearly implies use when the caller has a company name to search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over lookup_company or when to use the validation siblings. There are no when-not conditions or alternative routing instructions.

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