run_ee_companies_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context absent from the schema, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the search is name-only versus fuzzy.

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?

It is a single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the field list and cost note. Minor padding from enumerating returned fields, but nothing wasteful enough to penalize more heavily.

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 and no annotations, the description gives a partial sense of the returned fields and a cost model, but omits pagination/capping behavior and does not clarify its relationship to neighboring Estonia tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for a registry 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 the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the keyword parameter ('by company name') and adds nothing about the status enum, max_items limit, or start_page semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (Estonia company registry / e-Business Register) scoped by company name, and lists the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like run_ee_companies or run_ee_company_documents.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this search tool is preferable to run_ee_companies or the documents/filings siblings, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by 'Search ... by company name'.

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