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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return format ('Cyborg Score and one-line strategic profile'), the ordering ('ranked by Cyborg Score'), and the limit behavior ('up to N companies'). It does not mention edge cases like no results or matching semantics, but for a read-only search tool, this is substantial coverage.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second explains the output and enumerates three concrete use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (Cyborg Score, strategic profile), the ranking, and the use cases. The limit parameter is referenced via 'up to N companies', making the behavior clear without needing to restate the schema.

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 schema already provides full coverage of both parameters (industry and limit) with descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 has a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('companies in AskCyborg's corpus'), and clearly scopes the operation to 'a specific industry'. It also distinguishes this tool from generic search and competitor tools by mentioning sector mapping, comparable analysis, and discovery, and by specifying the ranking by Cyborg Score.

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 explicitly provides use cases ('sector mapping, comparable analysis, or to discover companies you didn't know existed in a space') and clarifies it is for industry-based discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like search_companies or find_competitors.

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