companies_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses the return envelope (outcome, normalized output, raw provider data, _meta.tried), provider-native behavior, and the billing side effect. It could add auth or rate-limit context, but the disclosed cost behavior is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded with search criteria, then behavior, return shape, and cost. It is nearly clean, but the flow after '`companies` Use vendor' is slightly awkward and costs it a 5.

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?

The description covers cross-cutting concerns well: search modes, vendor pinning, return envelope, and billing. With a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, this is mostly complete, though explicit alternative-tool guidance and auth expectations would round it out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not compensate. It adds only the vendor-pinning hint and billing context, which does not materially extend the parameter semantics already present in the schema.

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 finds companies by free-text, name, industry, technology, or domain, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like companies_enrich, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus companies_enrich or people_search. The only usage-like advice is 'Use vendor to pin a provider,' which is parameter instruction rather than alternative routing.

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