run_uk_companies_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral value an agent cannot get from the schema. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing start_page, nor about rate limits or auth.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler: the registry, jurisdiction, search key, returned fields, and cost are all front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, link), which is exactly what the agent needs to judge relevance. The remaining gap is the absence of any pagination note for start_page and no disambiguation from run_uk_companies.

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 all four parameters (keyword, status, max_items, start_page) are already documented with examples, ranges and an enum. The description only confirms the name-based search and does not add format or semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 a precisely scoped resource (United Kingdom company registry / Companies House), plus the search key (company name) and the returned fields. This is enough to distinguish it from the many other country registries, though it never names the sibling run_uk_companies (full record) or run_uk_company_filings to draw the line explicitly.

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 triggering condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance. With ~200 siblings including run_uk_companies and run_uk_company_filings for the same jurisdiction, the agent gets no help choosing between them.

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