organization_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a search operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what happens with empty results. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral aspects.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations with examples, return value description, and a practical example. Every sentence adds value - no redundant information. The example is appropriately placed at the end.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and providing an example. However, for a search tool with many siblings, it could better differentiate when to use this vs alternatives. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, which is handled appropriately.

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 fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 8 parameters, including examples for complex ones (revenue_range, organization_num_employees_ranges). Each parameter's purpose is explained beyond just the parameter name.

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 tool searches for organizations/companies in Apollo's database, using specific verb ('search') and resource ('organizations/companies'). It distinguishes from siblings like organization_enrich (which likely enriches existing records) and people_search (which searches individuals).

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 usage through the example (finding SaaS companies with specific criteria), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like organization_enrich or people_search. No guidance on prerequisites, rate limits, or access requirements is provided.

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