Search companies on the platform. Returns company name, industry, location, size, website, and open roles count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default: 10) | |
| query | No | Company name or industry keyword | |
| country | No | Filter by country | |
| industry | No | Filter by industry | |
| is_hiring | No | Filter to companies actively hiring |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only mentions return fields, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, but could be structured with bullet points for clarity.
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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers return values but lacks details on default behavior or interaction of filters.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what schema 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?
Clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'companies', lists return fields (name, industry, etc.), and is distinct from siblings like search_jobs.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions or preconditions mentioned.
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.
The admin_* tools are clearly separated by permission level, and most tools have distinct resource+action purposes. There is some overlap between admin_create_news and draft_news (both create news) and between admin_translate_news and submit_news_translation (both translate), but the descriptions clarify the differences. Overall, an agent can usually tell tools apart.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (admin_create_news, get_news, search_jobs). Minor inconsistencies include apply_to_job instead of apply_job, and using get_my_applications vs list_my_resumes for similar user-specific listings. Despite these, the naming is predictable and readable.
Seventeen tools is slightly heavy, but the server covers multiple domains: news management, translations, job search/application, and platform statistics. Each tool appears to serve a distinct need, so the count is reasonable for the platform's scope.
The core workflows are covered: searching and applying to jobs, reading and translating news, and getting stats. However, there is no delete or non-admin edit for news articles (only resubmit_news for flagged drafts), and no resume creation/update tools. These gaps require workarounds or admin privileges.
