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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, read-only nature, data freshness). The agent has no information about side effects or constraints beyond the basic search action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core purpose and search dimensions. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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, no annotations, and only one undocumented parameter, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, result structure, or any limitations (e.g., maximum results, filtering). An AI agent lacks the context to use the tool correctly beyond the most basic search.

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?

The only parameter 'query' has no description in the schema. The tool description adds that the search can be by 'keyword, technology, or person', giving some context on what to enter. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but the parameter remains a plain string without format hints.

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 it is a cross-company search by keyword, technology, or person. This distinguishes it from siblings like origin_company or origin_person, which target specific entities. However, it could be more precise about what types of results are returned (e.g., documents, profiles).

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 versus alternatives. The term 'cross-company' implies it's for broad searches, but it doesn't mention that for specific entities, siblings like origin_company should be used. This lack of direction leaves the agent guessing.

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