search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the search action and source, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, which are needed for a search tool.

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, well-formed sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of sibling tools, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values (e.g., whether it returns CIK numbers, tickers) and does not fully compensate for the absence of an output schema. It meets minimum viability.

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% with both 'query' and 'limit' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'SEC EDGAR for public companies', and the method 'by name or ticker symbol'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_profile, get_filings, and get_financials, which are for retrieving detailed data after finding a company.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage as the entry point for finding companies, but does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context.

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