firmy_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior: searching and returning matching Czech companies with their data. It does not cover pagination, rate limits, or authorization, but for a read-only search tool those are not critical. The description does not contradict any annotations because there are none.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first states the action, resource, and search dimensions with examples; the second states the return behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple: one required string parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description explains what the tool searches, gives query examples, and states the result is matching Czech companies with their data. For this level of complexity, nothing essential is missing, though the exact shape of 'their data' is unspecified.

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 already fully describes 'query' (100% coverage), so the description is not required to explain it. It adds value by providing concrete example queries and framing query as a 'need', reinforcing that the input can be a product, service, or keyword. This makes parameter usage more actionable than the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search', names the resource ('companies in the AiTop plástev'), and specifies the search dimension (product, service, need). Examples like 'baterie' and 'účetnictví' make the intent unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like firmy_list (listing) or firmy_ask (question-based).

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 implicitly tells an agent when to invoke it: whenever the user needs to find a Czech company by a product or service need. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use it, such as when listing all companies. So it provides clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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