run_br_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 cost model ('1 point per returned record') and lists the returned fields, but omits permission/auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior for a tool whose schema exposes start_page and max_items.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost note appended. No filler or redundancy; efficient and scannable.

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 responsibly enumerates the return fields (name, CNPJ, status, link) and notes the point cost. It is largely complete for a search tool, with only minor gaps around pagination and access requirements.

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 the schema already documents keyword, status, max_items, and start_page. The description only echoes that search is by company name and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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), resource (Brazil company registry / CNPJ / Receita Federal data), and enumerates the returned fields (name, CNPJ, status, link). It clearly identifies itself as the name-based search for Brazilian companies, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_br_companies (the non-search 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?

The phrase 'by company name' implies how to invoke it, and the cost note hints at consumption behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any reference to alternatives such as run_br_companies. Usage is only implied.

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