enriched_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the '$0.10' paid cost which is useful transparency, and reveals the returned data includes competitive analysis and financial data. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, data freshness, whether results are real-time or cached, or the response format. For a paid tool, more behavioral transparency would be expected.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the paid cost indicator and core purpose. It's efficient but arguably too terse - it captures the essence without wasting words, but leaves out valuable usage guidance that could fit in the same space. The paid tag at the start is informative placement.

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 this is a paid tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and overlapping sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enriched' means practically, how results differ from running the sibling tools separately, whether the $0.10 is per-call or per-result, or the shape of returned data. For a paid multi-faceted search tool, this needs more context.

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%, and the description adds minimal parameter context. It implies 'query' is a business search term and 'max_results' limits output count, but doesn't explicitly explain either parameter's format, constraints, or semantics. The description tags '[PAID $0.10]' suggesting the cost likely scales with max_results but doesn't state this. The description should compensate for zero schema coverage but barely does.

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 it performs 'deep enriched business search' with 'competitive analysis and financial data' - clear verb (search) and resource (businesses). It distinguishes itself from siblings by combining competitive analysis and financial data in a single search. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling tools it differentiates from or how 'enriched' differs from regular search.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling tools (company_overview, market_trend, competitive_analysis, financial_report). It implies a one-stop comprehensive search that combines competitive and financial data, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. Given the sibling tools clearly overlap in competitive/financial domains, this is a significant gap.

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