search_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard cap of 10 results and the absence of a cursor or overall count, which tells the agent this cannot be paginated or used for counting.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the required-criterion constraint, then the result limitation. Nothing is padded, though the result-cap sentence partially overlaps with the output schema and could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers scope, the result cap, and the absence of pagination. Its one weak spot is the mismatch with the schema's empty required list, which could lead an agent to call it with no criteria at all.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description restates the three search facets but adds no syntax, matching, or slug-format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb+resource (find public companies) and enumerates the three searchable facets (name, industry, headquarters text), which matches the query/industry/geo parameters. It implicitly separates this search tool from the sibling get_company/get_company_jobs lookups, but never names them, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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?

"A search criterion is required" tells the agent a precondition, and "this is not a company directory export" rules out a bulk-enumeration use case. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_company or get_taxonomies, and the claim that a criterion is required conflicts with the schema's empty required list, leaving the agent to guess.

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