nc_search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that only active companies are returned and explains RIDET's role, but it does not describe result shape, pagination, matching behavior, or any operational caveats. This is a non-mutating lookup, so the omission is moderate rather than severe.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation and scope, the second clarifies the registry. No filler.

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 simple search with fully described parameters this is largely adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what the search returns or how results are ordered or paginated. It also omits usage boundaries relative to sibling tools, leaving some uncertainty for an agent deciding between tools.

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 100%, so all four parameters already have descriptions (query, limit, sector, commune). The tool description adds registry context but no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a target ('active companies'), and a specific registry ('New Caledonia RIDET'), with a helpful France SIRET analogy. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like nc_get_company or nc_get_companies_by_sector.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this search over nc_get_company or nc_get_companies_by_sector, or when the sector/commune filters should be used instead. The only inferred context is the word 'Search'; no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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