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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: prefix matching, case-insensitivity, relevance ranking, brand/AKA awareness (with concrete examples), and the behavior of type=all and detail=full. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or the exact output shape, which would further improve transparency.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It starts with the search scope and behavior, then gives usage guidance, then clarifies key parameter options. No redundant or tautological content; it's well-structured and efficiently worded.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a search tool: it covers the entity types, search fields, ranking behavior, and the downstream workflow. The `fields` parameter and exact return columns are not described, but the tool's role as an entity-resolution first step is clear enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains q via 'by name (prefix, case-insensitive), ticker, or CIK,' clarifies type=all, and explains detail=full. However, `limit` and especially `fields` receive no explanation in either the schema or description, missing an opportunity to fully cover all parameters.

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 purpose: searching private companies, investors, funds, people, and LPs by name, ticker, or CIK, with relevance ranking. It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning it as the FIRST-step entity resolution tool, explicitly noting to 'resolve the entity id' before calling company/dossier/realtime tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this FIRST for any private-company question' and 'then call the company/dossier/realtime tools.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how it fits into the workflow, distinguishing it from the many sibling private market tools.

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