crm_search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' and 'filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action (search companies) and includes a key constraint (company-specific filters). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the search functionality, parameter usage, expected output, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns a list of companies with filtering, sorting, and pagination, the description provides too little context for an agent to use it correctly without extensive trial and error.

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 only mentions 'company-specific filters' which loosely relates to the 'filterGroups' parameter but doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's structure provides, failing to clarify what these parameters mean or how to use them effectively.

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 'Search companies with company-specific filters' states the verb (search) and resource (companies) but is vague about scope and differentiation. It mentions 'company-specific filters' but doesn't clarify what distinguishes this from other search tools like crm_search_contacts or crm_search_leads. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this search unique to companies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like crm_get_company, crm_list_objects, and other search tools (crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads), the description offers no context about when this search is appropriate versus simpler retrieval methods. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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