InternationalBusinessSearch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the geographic-scope detail is useful. However, it does not disclose output format, result-limiting behavior, or whether any side effects exist, though for a search tool the risk is modest.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could add sibling differentiation or result hints, but the brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter search tool.

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 the empty schema and lack of output schema, the description states the core purpose and scope adequately. It still leaves ambiguity about how a search is initiated without parameters and what a successful result looks like, so an agent may lack enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and no required parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter-specific detail. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; there is nothing missing to document.

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 a verb ('Search') and resource ('a business') plus geographic scope ('from any country'), so an agent can tell this is a business-search operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from InternationalBusinessProfile or other sibling tools, but the search-vs-profile distinction is reasonably clear.

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 choose this tool over InternationalBusinessProfile or the many other sibling search/query tools. No exclusions, alternatives, or usage context are provided, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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