run_no_companies_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful cost context ('1 point per returned record'), which tells the agent results are metered, but it omits any auth/permission requirements and does not characterize pagination or result caps beyond the schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target. The enumerations of output fields and cost are compact and earn their place given there is no output schema, though the inline field list makes it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and discloses cost. It is nearly complete for a simple search tool, missing only pagination behavior (how start_page/max_items interact) and any guidance on result limits.

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 both keyword, max_items, and start_page are already documented in the schema. The description's listed items (name, org number, postal code, place, link) are returned fields, not parameters, so it adds no parameter-level meaning. 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 (Norway company registry, with both Brønnøysundregistrene and Enhetsregisteret named), and scopes it to company-name lookup. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like run_no_companies (non-search) and run_no_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 phrase 'by company name' implies the intended lookup usage, and the required keyword param reinforces it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. when to pick this over run_no_companies or a filings tool, so usage is only implied.

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