Search people, products, brands or patents

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is disclosing the shape of results per kind, which helps the agent plan the follow-up call. It says nothing about ranking, empty-result behavior, or the 200-page/60-per-page ceilings beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource list, then result identifiers, then the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant with the 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 8 parameters at full schema coverage but no output schema, the description compensates by describing the identifiers returned and which tool consumes them. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity; only result ordering and volume expectations are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds value by explaining what each `kind` yields — person_id for people, product_id plus supplier company_id for products, ip_id for brands and patents. That mapping is genuinely useful semantics the enum alone doesn't convey.

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 and enumerates the exact resource types searched (people, products, registered brands, patents, industrial designs), and further maps each to the detail tool it feeds (rs_person, rs_product, rs_ip). It also names the sibling it is not for (rs_search_companies), so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: 'For companies use rs_search_companies (it has filters)' — an explicit exclusion with a reason. It also implies usage via the id-chaining guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer 'everything' versus a specific kind, though the schema enum covers that.

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