run_lu_companies_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the credit cost ('1 point per returned record') and lists the return fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or the scale of results beyond the schema's max_items.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the source and search modes, then the outputs and cost. Nothing is redundant, though it could be split slightly for readability.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, RCS number, status, link). Combined with fully documented params, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only result-volume and pagination semantics are unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by stating the keyword can be an RCS number, which the schema ('Company name') does not, and by giving the French status labels (radiée / en faillite) that map onto the schema's active/inactive enum.

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 (Luxembourg company registry LBR/RCS) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate from the sibling run_lu_companies (the non-search variant), which is the only gap.

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 'search by company name or RCS number', giving the agent a clear sense of when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling run_lu_companies, so routing must be inferred.

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