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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing that results carry stable IDs. It adds nothing about matching behavior (case sensitivity, multi-match returns, result caps), which is the remaining behavior an agent needs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and matching mode, and it closes with the return-value fact. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers the input semantics and the shape of the return (stable IDs). Minor gaps around empty-result and multi-match behavior keep it from a 5.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description, so the description carries the burden — 'by ticker or name prefix' is exactly the information needed to form a valid value. It stops short of syntax examples or case-sensitivity notes, so not a 5.

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 ('Find companies') plus the matching modes ('ticker or name prefix') and the return characteristic ('stable IDs'). This clearly separates it from the research-oriented siblings like get_company_research, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a lookup step to resolve a company to an ID, but the description never says when to use it instead of the sibling research tools or what happens with ambiguous/no matches. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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