Search a company registry by name or keyword

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds rich behavioral context: caching details, confirmation dialog behavior, error handling on unsupported clients, per-country caveats, and a status field with cross-country-cautious enum. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for usage modes, tier caps, and return format. It is front-loaded with the most critical information. However, it is somewhat verbose, especially the parameter descriptions with country-specific filter details that could be better placed in the schema. Every sentence adds value, but brevity could be improved.

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 the tool's high complexity (62 parameters, nested objects, per-country specifics) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers all essential dimensions: usage modes, tier caps, return format, behavioral traits, and clear guidance on related tools. It is a self-contained guide for effective tool usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the mutual exclusivity and logic between `jurisdiction` and `jurisdictions`, clarifying per-jurisdiction usage and edge cases like empty queries for FR/IE and structured filter syntax for AU. It also explains the `status` field return semantics, which is not in the schema. However, the description does not cover all individual parameter nuances (e.g., country-specific filters are mostly documented in schema), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 searches company registries by name/keyword. It distinctly differentiates from siblings by detailing its two calling modes (single vs. multi-country) and explicitly referencing follow-up tools that do NOT count against fan-out caps, establishing its role as the primary search entry point.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each calling mode: prefer singular `jurisdiction` for a specific country, use plural `jurisdictions` only when uncertain and with user confirmation. Also clarifies per-tier caps and alternatives like asking the user or using follow-up tools, which do not count against caps.

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