run_be_companies_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing model ("1 point per returned record"), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, auth, or error conditions.

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 tight sentences: the registry, search key, and return fields come first, followed by the cost. No filler and everything is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds the cost model. It stops short of mentioning pagination semantics for start_page/max_items, the one remaining gap for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so keyword, status, max_items, and start_page are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that search is by company name, which is redundant with the schema's keyword description, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (Belgium company registry KBO/BCE), plus the returned fields (name, enterprise number, status, address, link). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the dozens of other run_*_companies_search siblings by naming the country, though it never explicitly contrasts with run_be_companies or other registries.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the country reference; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no contrast drawn against the non-search sibling run_be_companies or other country registries. An agent can infer the fit from the name, but nothing is spelled out.

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