UK Property Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'returns a list of matches,' which provides basic output information, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, while the second provides crucial usage guidance with a specific alternative. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

Given that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. While it mentions 'returns a list of matches,' it doesn't describe the structure of those matches, potential limitations, or error handling. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, the description is adequate but leaves important contextual gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter that's well-documented in the schema, this is acceptable. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description gets a 4 because it effectively communicates the tool's purpose without needing to repeat parameter details.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Companies House by company name'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool read_resource by explaining the alternative for direct lookup by company number. This provides excellent clarity about what the tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 description explicitly provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool (search by company name) and when to use an alternative (direct lookup by company number via read_resource). It names the specific alternative tool and provides an example, making it very clear when this tool is appropriate versus other options.

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