run_bg_companies_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which an agent needs for budgeting, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result ordering. As a read-only search this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short field-list fragment; nothing is padded. The cost note is compact. It is efficiently sized for the amount of information conveyed.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, UIC, legal form, card link). For a 3-parameter read-only search with no annotations, this covers most of what an agent needs, though pagination behavior across start_page/max_items is left implicit.

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, max_items (cap 250) and start_page are already documented. The description adds only that the keyword may be a name or a UIC, which is marginal new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) plus the exact resource (Bulgaria company registry / Commercial Register) and the two query modes (company name or UIC), and even lists the returned fields. It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from the closely named sibling run_bg_companies or from run_bg_company_filings, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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 phrase 'search by company name or UIC' implies the intended use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many country-search and filing siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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