credit_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only states the action and parameter scope, but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, exact matching policy, or what constitutes a 'credit entity'. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. While it is laconic, it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool, though it leans toward under-specification rather than being merely concise.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual richness. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, or any filtering constraints beyond the query parameter. An agent could call it correctly, but might be surprised by the response shape or coverage. More detail would improve completeness.

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% because the only parameter 'query' has a description ('Organization name to search'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and no extra semantic enrichment.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('credit entities') with a clear qualifier ('by organization name'). It is distinct from many siblings like 'credit_ratings' which focuses on ratings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The sibling list is large, and without explicit routing an agent may not know if this is the right search tool versus others.

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