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 burden. It discloses the title-level restriction and bidirectional search capability, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, auth requirements, or result ordering behavior. The disclosed scope restriction adds value but the safety/profile details are absent.
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?
Three sentences, all substantive. Front-loaded purpose, explicit usage context, and boundary declaration in the final sentence. Zero filler or 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?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description moderately compensates by covering purpose, scope boundaries, and an alternative tool. The bidirectional reverse-search capability in the 'when to use' line hints at parameter semantics. Slightly more return-format detail would push it higher, but it's reasonably complete for a search tool.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('CEO/president name to search' and 'Max results'). The description's 'bidirectional' nature (find executive for company OR find companies for executive) adds context about how the name parameter is used, but this interpretation is somewhat ambiguous given a single name parameter,
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?
Uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear subject (chief executive, president, chairman, manager) and resource (company/executive reverse lookup). Explicitly distinguishes the 'who is in charge' use case from the 'does this company exist' use case, which differentiates it from private_search/private_entity siblings.
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?
Provides explicit 'Use when' guidance ('who is actually in charge here' vs 'does this company exist'). Clearly states scope restriction ('Restricted to executive-level titles') and names the alternative tool for broader role coverage ('use private_officer_search for any role including directors and secretaries').
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search vs resolve vs browse vs officer vs entity records are well-separated. However, private_browse and private_search overlap in intent (both find companies by criteria/name), and the description explicitly cross-references private_list which doesn't exist as a tool, adding confusion. private_ceo_search and private_officer_search are distinguished mainly by title scope, which is reasonable but could be misselected.
Tools consistently use the private_ prefix with snake_case verb_noun names (private_browse, private_search, private_resolve, private_ceo_search, private_officer_search). The convention is uniform and predictable. Minor deviation: private_entity is a noun-only tool name rather than verb_noun, but all others follow the pattern well.
11 tools is well-scoped for a company data server. Each tool covers a distinct data-access pattern (browse, search, resolve, officer find, entity record, aggregates), and none feel redundant or ornamental.
The surface covers identification (search/resolve), full records (private_entity), officer/executive lookups, people-to-company mapping, and data-availability introspection (private_stats). Minor gaps: there's no dedicated tool for fetching physical addresses or contact info beyond the entity record, and no filtered officer search by state/industry combining criteria with private_browse. But core lifecycle needs are covered.