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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core operation (search by name) and cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is useful beyond structured fields. However, it does not specify the return format, whether query is required despite schema showing 0 required params, pagination, or any rate limits—leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 very short and front-loaded: one clear functional sentence followed by a concise billing note. The 'Group: Companies' segment is somewhat redundant given the tool name, but it does not add significant bloat. Overall, it is economical and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should explain what the lookup returns (e.g., company objects, IDs, matching names) and any behavior on empty queries. It currently only states the search action and cost, leaving key usage context missing for an agent to gauge expectations or handle errors.

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% with the query parameter described as 'the search query it can be 1 char or multiple.' The tool description adds meaningful semantic context by clarifying that the query is a company name ('search companies by name'), which enhances the schema's generic definition.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'search companies by name.' This is a specific verb + resource with a clear scope (by name), which distinguishes it from broader search tools like get_api_v1_search_companies, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases.

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 usage for name-based company lookup via the verb and resource, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like get_api_v1_search_companies or get_api_v1_companies_company_universal_name_to_id. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the intent is reasonably inferable.

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