search

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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only (readOnlyHint: true), non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the behavioral trait 'lexical', meaning string-matching rather than semantic, but does not mention pagination, result limits, or return format.

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 sentence that conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main purpose. However, it could mention that the search spans multiple entity types and any default behavior (e.g., case sensitivity).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely links the query parameter to the search scope. It does not clarify expected format, example inputs, or behavior of the query parameter beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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' and the resources 'companies, aliases, categories, and metric keys', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company or list_companies that target individual resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when a lexical search is appropriate compared to using get_company for exact matches or compare_companies for comparisons.

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