crm_search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Search' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose pagination behavior (despite 'limit' and 'after' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with complex filter queries. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too concise given the complexity of the tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the complex filtering system, pagination, sorting, or what properties can be returned. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 5 undocumented parameters. The description only mentions 'company-specific filters' which vaguely relates to 'filterGroups' parameter. It doesn't explain 'properties', 'limit', 'after', or 'sorts' parameters, nor provide examples of filter syntax or property names.

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 states the verb ('search') and resource ('companies'), but is vague about scope and functionality. It mentions 'company-specific filters' but doesn't clarify what this means or how it differs from generic search. Compared to sibling tools like crm_search_contacts and crm_search_leads, the differentiation is minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple search tools (crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads, crm_search_objects) but no indication of when company search is appropriate versus object search or other methods. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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