search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'searches' and 'searches the database' clearly indicate a read-only operation. Mention of 'various matching strategies' discloses a behavioral trait. No contradictions or hidden side effects are implied.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 full schema, an output schema, and simple read-only nature, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about competing siblings, but that is not necessary for basic usage.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, including defaults and allowed values for match_type. The description adds no significant parameter detail beyond the schema, but it does mention 'matching strategies' which aligns with match_type.

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 opens with 'Search for companies (accounts) in Autotask', which clearly specifies the resource and action. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tickets and search_contacts by limiting the scope to companies/accounts.

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 states specific use cases: 'finding company information, looking up account IDs for filtering other searches, or exploring the customer base.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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