run_ge_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 billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is a genuine behavioral trait, but omits auth requirements, pagination behavior, and what the response looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the result fields and the cost note. Efficient and free of padding, though the cost sentence could be folded more tightly.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the field list partially compensates, but it doesn't clarify pagination or how it differs from run_ge_companies, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 adds only a marginal hint that keyword accepts a name or identification code; 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 and resource ('Search the Georgia company registry (NAPR)') and lists the returned fields (name, registration number, status, legal form), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_ge_companies, so an agent can't tell which of the Georgia tools to pick from the description alone.

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 or identification code' implies how to query, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (especially versus run_ge_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.