company_registry_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are cached for 5 minutes and the returned fields are CUI, name and registration details. It stops short of describing empty-result or rate-limit behavior.

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 verb and resource, then return values, then usage hint. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 only 2 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a caching caveat, which is sufficient to call it correctly. A brief note on how it differs from the registry-based client creation path would close the last gap.

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 both q and limit are already documented with types, minimum length and default. The description restates that search is by company name but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or limit guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Search the Romanian company registry (ONRC) by company name') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It only partially differentiates from nearby siblings such as company_registry_cities or clients_from_registry, which are not named.

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 sentence 'Useful for finding a company before creating a client' implies the usage context, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and the very similar clients_from_registry sibling is never mentioned as an alternative.

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