sg_company_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields but does not disclose search behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial match, result limits, or pagination). For a read-only search, this is minimal transparency beyond what a tool name would imply.

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 short sentences that immediately convey the purpose and key outputs. No filler or redundant wording. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of a single-parameter search tool, the description covers the essentials: what it searches and what it returns. However, it lacks details about match behavior, result limits, or error conditions. With no output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is not severely deficient.

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 input schema covers the only parameter 'query' with a clear description ('Company name to search for'), and the tool description also mentions 'by name'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little extra meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('ACRA-registered companies in Singapore'), and the scope ('by name'). It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous. It stands out from sibling tools, none of which target company records.

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 conveys when to use this tool (when you need to search for a company by name), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. Since there are no competing company-search tools among the siblings, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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