importyeti_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free public data, the source is ImportYeti's JSON API, and notes the distinct behavior from the human-facing page (which has a bug). It also tells what fields are returned, which is helpful. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or pagination behavior, but the schema covers page.

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 two sentences plus one subsidiary clause. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then returns fields, chaining, and source/credential context. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing like 'Searches ImportYeti for companies...' after the first sentence.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the key return values and the chaining workflow to importyeti_company. It also explains credential-free access and the API source. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination in the description, but the schema already provides that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both q and page. The description adds little beyond the schema—it restates 'by name' and mentions return fields, but does not provide additional parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 ImportYeti companies and suppliers by name, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the returned fields (kind, slug, country, address, shipment stats) and distinguishes itself from the sibling importyeti_company by explaining how a company result's slug chains into that tool.

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 when to use this tool: for searching by name. It explicitly mentions the chaining to GET /importyeti/company, indicating that for detailed company data, use that tool after search. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or compare with other search tools, leaving some implicit guidance.

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