run_nl_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 valuably discloses the data source, returned fields, and billing cost (1 point per returned record), but it omits explicit read-only status, rate limits, pagination behavior, and error conditions.

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 with no wasted text. It covers the registry, search key, returned fields, and cost efficiently.

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 simple country-registry search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the source, search basis, returned fields, and billing cost. It could be stronger by explicitly distinguishing run_nl_companies and noting pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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 parameter semantics are already well documented. The description mentions searching by company name but adds no additional meaning for status, max_items, or start_page beyond the schema.

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 Netherlands company registry (KVK Handelsregister) by company name, and lists returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from generic search tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling run_nl_companies tool.

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?

Gives clear usage context by specifying Netherlands registry search by company name. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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