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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to do so: there is no mention of pagination, result limits, asynchronous search behavior, rate limits, or whether the search persists for later retrieval. The truncated phrase about what it returns provides no actual behavioral information.

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 short but not effectively structured: the first sentence duplicates obvious meaning, and the second sentence is cut off mid-phrase. This is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness, and the incomplete sentence actively harms usability.

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 search tool, an agent needs to know what criteria are accepted, what results look like, and whether search is synchronous or asynchronous. The description provides none of this, and the output schema is absent. Even with zero parameters, the truncated return statement leaves the tool functionally opaque.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the schema itself. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the schema already covers everything; the mention of 'your criteria' adds no specific parameter semantics but also does not need to.

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 is essentially a tautology: 'make a search using your criteria' restates the tool name without specifying what is being searched or what the endpoint actually does. The sentence trails off ('This endpoint will return a "'), so the intended resource and result type are never clearly stated. It also does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many sibling search tools such as search_leads, search_posts, or search_companies_instantly.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'Step 1', which vaguely suggests this is the first call in a workflow, but no context explains what that workflow is or when this tool should be selected over alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, follow-up steps, or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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