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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope but omits critical traits such as whether partial matches are supported, case sensitivity, pagination, rate limits, or result structure. The brief description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 a single sentence that directly states the core functionality. It is efficient and front-loaded, though somewhat lacking in detail. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 complexity (multiple markets, search term), the description is too brief. It does not specify matching behavior, result limits, or other parameters. Although an output schema exists, the missing behavioral context makes the description incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ticker or name' for the query parameter but does not explain format, constraints, or the limit parameter at all. The compensation is incomplete; the description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'search' and resource 'companies', specifies search criteria (ticker or name) and geographic scope (US/JP/KR/HK/CN/UK). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company and screen_companies.

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 that this tool is for searching companies by identifier across specific markets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_company, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. It offers context but no explicit guidance.

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