search_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral details: wildcard support, matching algorithms, phonetic matching, page size limit (~100), and hourly request budget. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a concise intro, followed by clear parameter bullet points, and a summary of the return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (dict with query echo, count, hourly budget, and results with detailed fields). It also notes the connection to fetch_document, making it complete for a search tool.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides exhaustive meaning for all 4 parameters: examples of wildcards, match options (all/min/exact), similar flag explanation, and max_results context about page size.

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 specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'German commercial register (Handelsregister) for companies', providing a precise and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 offers clear guidance on parameter usage (keywords, match modes, similar, max_results) and mentions cross-reference to fetch_document, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations for queries that might be better served by get_company.

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