swissco_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: substring matching on name OR purpose, prefix-only matching for rest, and the credential requirement for the rest backend — all context the annotations do not convey. It is silent on result ordering and pagination, but the matching semantics are the important disclosure here.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the rationale follows cleanly. The mid-paragraph enumeration of returned fields per backend is largely duplicated by the output schema and is the weakest, least-earning part, but the rest is tight.

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 an output schema present, return fields need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety, so the description is close to complete. The remaining gaps are minor: no explicit routing to sibling lookup tools and no mention of result ordering or volume 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 the schema already documents term, via, limit, canton and legal_form. The description reinforces the via semantics and clarifies that the LINDAS match covers both name and purpose, but adds nothing about limit, canton or legal_form beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: find companies by matching *term* against legal name or statutory purpose. It also distinguishes the two backends (LINDAS vs PublicREST) and their returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It stops short of naming or contrasting any of the many siblings (swissco_lookup, swissco_lei, etc.), so an agent must infer boundary cases.

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?

It gives a concrete reason to prefer this tool ("the purpose is what makes this worth running") and explains the behavioral fork between backends: LINDAS matches a name/purpose substring, while via="rest" matches a name prefix. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative sibling for entity-specific lookups.

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