company_registry_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a caching behavior ('Results are cached for 5 minutes'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose read-only status, rate limits, or behavior on no matches. The cache disclosure adds genuine value, but given zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail would be warranted.

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 sentences, each adding value: purpose, return format, use case, and caching. No waste or redundancy. Could arguably be more compact, but it's appropriately sized for what it conveys.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects) and the description covers the purpose, return content, use case, and caching behavior. For a search tool of this complexity, this is reasonably complete. No output schema exists, so the description does state what's returned.

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 both params (q and limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal param-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search the Romanian company registry by company name') and specifies what's returned (companies with CUI, name, registration details). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like company_registry_cities and clients_anaf_lookup by naming the ONRC registry specifically.

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 provides clear context ('Useful for finding a company before creating a client') that indicates when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like clients_anaf_lookup, but the stated use case provides reasonable guidance for an agent.

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