run_cy_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 a cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the fields returned, but is silent on pagination behavior, rate limits, result caps, and whether the registry response can be truncated. It adds real value (cost) but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 names the source and method, then lists outputs and pricing with no wasted words. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the slightly crammed output-field list keeps it from a 5.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields, and the cost note is relevant for a metered search. Combined with the fully documented 4-param schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though paging/limit semantics are only covered by the schema, not elaborated.

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 enum, max_items (up to 200) and start_page. The description only echoes the name-based nature of keyword and adds nothing about the enum or paging parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search the Cyprus company registry (Registrar of Companies, DRCOR) by name', and it even enumerates returned fields (name, registration number, type, status, link). It is clearly the Cyprus-jurisdiction search, but it never explicitly contrasts with its nearest sibling run_cy_companies, so sibling differentiation is implied by the country scope rather than stated.

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 name' implies the lookup is keyword-driven, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer run_cy_companies or run_cy_company_filings, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer routing purely from the country token in the name.

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