get_similar_companies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a non-mutating read, and the similarity dimensions are named, but nothing is said about how results are ranked, whether same_city is a hard filter or a soft preference in the ranking, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'limit' parameter, the definition is too thin. It should state that the input is one seed organization number and roughly what comes back (how many, ranked how), yet none of that is present.

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 coverage is 67% with orgnr and same_city documented, but the 'limit' parameter has no description anywhere and defaults to 20. The description also never mentions that the required orgnr is the seed company, which is the single most important thing to know about invoking this tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('companies similar'), plus the similarity basis (industry and location). It is distinguishable from lookup_company and analyze_company_financials, but it never names a sibling or contrasts with search_companies, which is the closest alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'similar by industry and location' hints at discovery/lookalike use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to search_companies for broader queries. An agent must infer that this is the seeding tool for a known company rather than a general search.

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