Find the chief executive, president, chairman or manager behind a company, or find every company a named executive runs. Use when the question is "who is actually in charge here" rather than "does this company exist". Restricted to executive-level titles; use private_officer_search for any role including directors and secretaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | CEO/president name to search | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the dual search modes, the restriction to executive-level titles, and the conceptual query semantics. It does not mention return format or data caveats, but the core behavior is clearly explained. A 4 is appropriate given the lack of annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance and a sibling alternative. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.
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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for selection and broad invocation, including role restrictions and sibling comparison. It lacks information about the return shape, but that is a minor gap for a search tool with a clear purpose. A 4 is reasonable.
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 100%, which normally sets a baseline of 3. However, the description introduces an ambiguity: 'find the chief executive behind a company' implies the `name` parameter may accept a company name, but the schema says 'CEO/president name to search.' The description does not explain how a single `name` parameter handles both company and executive lookups, which could lead to incorrect invocation.
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 starts with a clear, specific verb phrase: 'Find the chief executive, president, chairman or manager behind a company, or find every company a named executive runs.' It clearly defines the tool's dual scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools via the executive-level restriction.
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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the question is "who is actually in charge here"') and exactly when not to, naming the alternative: 'use private_officer_search for any role including directors and secretaries.' This is ideal usage guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct query type: name search, identity resolution, attribute-based browsing, executive vs officer lookup, entity records, and aggregate statistics. Descriptions explicitly call out when to use one over another (e.g., private_search vs private_resolve vs private_browse).
All tool names share the 'private_' prefix and follow snake_case. While some use verbs (browse, search, resolve) and others use nouns (entity, geography, stats), the pattern is highly predictable and the domain is uniformly private company data.
11 tools is right-sized for a business registry server: enough to cover various lookup and analytical needs without redundancy. Each tool has a clear purpose and earns its place.
The surface covers the full lifecycle of interacting with company records: discover (search, browse, resolve), detail (entity), people (officer, ceo), signals (owner_operated), aggregations (age, geography, type), and dataset awareness (stats). No obvious gaps for the stated scope.