search_company

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 discloses that the tool returns name and slug and implies a read-only search operation, but does not mention behavior such as case sensitivity, pagination, or error handling. Basic transparency is achieved, but gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences convey the purpose, return, and usage instruction without extraneous words. The structure is front-loaded with the action and result, followed by a directive, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the result. Minor omissions like search behavior details are acceptable given the low complexity.

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 schema has one parameter 'query' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds 'by name' to imply the query is a company name, but provides no format, example, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. Given low schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('companies by name'), and states the return value ('name and slug'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning this as the entry point to obtain slugs for use with other tools.

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 explicitly states 'Use the slug with all other tools,' providing a clear usage context. It implies that this tool is the first step in a workflow, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like resolve_company_ids.

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