search_gpsSearch the 900+ European private equity firms (GPs) tracked on GP Intel by name. Returns country, AUM and strategies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | GP name or fragment |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that it returns country, AUM, and strategies, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with action and scope. Every word earns its place.
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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does and returns, though it lacks details on error handling or matching behavior.
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 50% (only query has a description). The tool description mentions 'by name' but does not elaborate on the limit parameter or add meaning beyond the schema.
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 searches European PE firms by name and returns country, AUM, and strategies, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gp_exits and gp_portfolio.
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 implies use for name-based search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any conditions for not using it.
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 has a unique purpose: gp_exits and gp_portfolio are per-firm, while search_exits and search_deals are cross-firm, clearly differentiated by scope. search_companies, search_gps, and who_owns cover distinct entity types and actions, leaving no ambiguity.
Tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern for search_* tools and a gp_* prefix for per-firm tools, but who_owns breaks the convention with a question phrase. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not severely impair usability.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain, covering per-firm and cross-firm queries, entity searches, and ownership history without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers the core private equity data needs: searching firms and companies, viewing portfolios and exits for a specific GP, cross-firm deal and exit searches, and ownership lookup. Minor gaps like detailed company financials are outside the apparent scope.