abn_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note that the call hits a registry-backed external API, no mention of result limits, pagination, or that an API key is needed for auth.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing information noted in other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a result contains (ABN, entity name, status, location), but it does not. Combined with zero schema coverage on both parameters and no auth note, an agent could call this correctly only by guessing.

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 and it does not. The 'name' parameter is only implied by the phrase 'by name', and the 'api_key' parameter — an authentication credential — is not mentioned anywhere in the description or schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for Australian businesses by name'), which is clear on its own. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling abn_lookup, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether to search by name here or use the lookup variant.

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 on when to use this versus abn_lookup, no note that results are name-based fuzzy matches rather than exact ABN resolution, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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