search_corporations_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the data source depends on NTA_APP_ID and falls back to bundled synthetic data. It also signals partial matching, which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence stating the action and the environment-dependent behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Since an output schema is present, return values are already specified and need not be repeated. The description covers the core purpose and conditional data source, though it omits explicit mention of result limits; the `max_results` parameter partially addresses this.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `name` accepts a partial string, adding meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. The `max_results` parameter is not mentioned, though its name and default value provide some implicit meaning.

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 'Search corporations by (partial) name,' a specific verb-object pair that clearly identifies the resource and matching behavior. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like validate_corporate_number and search_banks.

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 specifies when the live API is used (when NTA_APP_ID is set) and when the synthetic fallback applies. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the search-vs-lookup/validate distinction is clear from the name and sibling list.

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