run_se_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 pricing model ('1 point per returned record') and enumerates the returned data points, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or how pagination affects results. It adds some behavioral value without being complete.

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 plus a short cost note; the registry, search keys, and output fields come first with no filler. The field enumeration is slightly dense but each item is informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (name, organisation number, status, city, legal form, card link) and states the per-record cost. Pagination behavior is left to the schema's start_page/max_items, which is acceptable.

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 the schema already documents keyword, status, max_items, and start_page. The description restates search-by-name/org-number and result fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (Search) and resource (Sweden company registry / Bolagsverket) scoped to Sweden, and lists the fields searched and returned. It clearly separates this from the many other country company-search siblings, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling run_se_companies, which an agent could confuse for the same registry.

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 only implied: 'by company name or organisation number' hints at the search inputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as run_se_companies (detail lookup) versus this search tool. The agent must infer the routing.

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