Search Hong Kong companies by name keyword or CR number. Returns matching list with name, CR number, status, and detail URL. Does NOT deduct points (subject to daily rate limit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of results to return (1-20, default 5). | |
| query | Yes | Company name keyword (Chinese or English, min 2 chars) or CR number (1-7 digits). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost profile ('Does NOT deduct points') and the existence of a daily rate limit, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination/limits behavior, or error handling for a lookup with no annotations to fall back on.
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 tight sentences with no waste: purpose first, return shape second, cost/rate-limit caveat third. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct information.
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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (name, CR number, status, detail URL). Combined with the input modes and rate-limit note, this is close to complete; pagination and error semantics are the only notable omissions.
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 the schema already documents both `query` (name or CR number, min 2 chars) and `limit` (1-20, default 5). The description restates the query modes without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 Hong Kong companies') plus the two accepted lookup keys (name keyword or CR number), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like batch_get_company_details or get_company_filings, which it must do by inference.
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 the usage context (lookup by name keyword or CR number), but never states when to prefer this tool over batch_get_company_details or the filing-related siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.