run_lv_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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output fields and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real value beyond the schema, but it omits pagination semantics (despite start_page/max_items), any auth or rate-limit notes, and whether status filtering is exact. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence covering source, query modes, and return fields, followed by a short cost note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 the right work by enumerating returned fields and stating the per-record cost. The main residual gap is pagination behavior for a 250-cap result set, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns extra credit by clarifying that the keyword accepts a registration number in addition to a company name — the schema description for keyword only mentions 'Company name'. That resolves a genuine ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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 (Latvia company registry / Register of Enterprises) and adds the query surface (company name or registration number) plus returned fields. It is clear and self-contained, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling run_lv_companies (the non-search/get variant) or run_lv_company_filings, which sit directly adjacent.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The phrase 'by company name or registration number' hints at query modes but says nothing about choosing this over run_lv_companies or run_lv_company_filings. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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