Search State Business Registration via OpenCorporates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the external API dependency (OpenCorporates), data lineage audibility, free tier constraints, auto-prefixing for US states, and the existence of a dryRun mode for testing. It does not mention latency or rate limiting, but it provides significant behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, though information about free tier limits could be separated. Overall, it is efficient and not overly verbose.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (name, company number, status, etc.), the source and limitations, and parameter behavior. It lacks details on pagination metadata and error handling, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 value by explaining the auto-prefixing for jurisdictionCode, the use case for dryRun, and that maxResults is capped by OpenCorporates. These details go beyond the schema descriptions and aid correct parameter use.

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 searches state business registrations via OpenCorporates. It lists specific use cases: mapping trade names, identifying registered agents, finding related entities, confirming active status. The verb 'Search' is precise, and the title indicates the source, distinguishing it from sibling tools like business_entity_detail.

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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., for legal entity mapping, registered agent identification) and includes practical guidance on jurisdiction narrowing for US states and free tier limits with API key requirements. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection among diverse siblings.

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