run_si_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 helpfully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about rate limits, permissions, pagination depth, or result cap behavior. Cost disclosure is real added value, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

One compact sentence covering registry, search key, and returned fields, followed by a short cost note. Front-loaded and free of 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?

For a 4-param search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned and the per-record cost, compensating for the missing output schema. Pagination params are covered by the schema, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 echoes the searchable field and status values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (and its 'active/deleted' wording slightly diverges from the enum's 'inactive/dissolved'). 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 (Slovenia company registry AJPES PRS), and names the search field (company name) plus the returned fields. Differentiation from the sibling run_si_companies (a likely direct lookup) is only implicit via 'by company name', so it falls just short of a clean 5.

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 phrasing 'by company name' implies you invoke this when you have a name keyword, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. run_si_companies) to route against. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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