search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose matching semantics (exact vs. substring vs. prefix on company name), result ordering, pagination behavior, or what fields each result returns — all material for a search tool with six parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a six-parameter search tool.

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 six parameters, the description should cover read-only safety, match behavior, and return shape. It covers none of these, leaving the agent to infer how results are produced and ordered.

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%, with each of the six parameters documented in the schema (including SNI pattern, limit bounds, and active_only default). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (Swedish companies by name) plus the notion of optional filters. An agent can tell it is a list-style company search, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_company or get_similar_companies.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the obvious alternatives (lookup_company for a known company, get_similar_companies, get_company_timeline) are mentioned. The only implicit signal is 'by name', which is weakly distinguishing.

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