run_il_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 cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context, but it omits pagination semantics, result-return behavior, and any auth/permission notes.

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: the search target and keys come first, the returned field list and the point cost follow. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 does well to enumerate the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, company type, registration date) and the point cost. It could still clarify pagination behavior and the boundary with run_il_companies.

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 parameters (keyword, status enum, max_items, start_page) are already documented. The description only restates the keyword input ('name or company number') and adds no new parameter semantics, so the 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+resource ('Search the Israel company registry (Corporations Authority)') and the search key ('by company name or company number'), plus the fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_il_companies, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'by company name or company number', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer the sibling run_il_companies (e.g. exact-number lookup).

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