run_hr_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 data source (Sudski registar) and the credit cost ('1 point per returned record'), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Effectively one sentence plus a short cost note, with the core purpose front-loaded. The trailing enumeration of return fields is slightly run-on but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 4-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers purpose, source, cost and returned fields adequately. Remaining gaps (pagination guidance, auth) are minor since the schema documents paging parameters.

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 no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the field list it gives refers to return values, not parameters. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Croatia company registry / Sudski registar) plus the lookup key (company name), and even enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling detail tool run_hr_companies and from run_hr_company_filings.

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 description implies the usage condition ('by company name') but never says when to use this versus the sibling run_hr_companies lookup or run_hr_company_filings, nor any exclusions. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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