business_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the output: 'registration records (status, dates, registered agent)' and clarifying matching behavior. It does not cover potential rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions, but for a read-only search tool these are minor gaps.

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?

Two sentences pack the core purpose, scope, output, and name-matching behavior with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

For a search tool with a well-defined schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, scope, return content, and name matching. It lacks an output schema, so the explicit mention of returned fields helps, but it could still clarify state coverage details or absence-of-results behavior.

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?

The schema already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor value beyond the schema by restating that full or partial names are accepted; it does not clarify states, exactMatch, or maxResultsPerState beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies a clear action ('Look up'), a precise resource ('U.S. company's official Secretary of State business registration'), and a bounded scope ('across 25 states (KYB)'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like new_business_filings and watchlist_screen, which clearly serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need official business registration records and status), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It gives a useful hint with 'Use the full or partial company name,' but lacks direct routing among the sibling tools.

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