Company Search

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 usefully discloses what the response contains (employee count, locations, industry, metadata), but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination — and with zero required parameters it doesn't clarify whether a bare call is valid.

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, front-loaded with the action and the accepted inputs. The phrase 'comprehensive business intelligence' is mildly promotional but the rest of the second sentence earns its place by naming returned fields.

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 3-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs and a rough return overview, which is the minimum viable. It leaves open whether parameters are combinable, whether at least one is required, and how results are ranked or limited.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all three lookup keys (domain, name, profile URL), which maps cleanly onto profile_url, company_name, and company_domain, but adds no format details (URI vs. bare domain), combinability, or required-ness guidance.

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 and resource ('Search for detailed company information') and enumerates the three lookup keys and the return content. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_company_funding or search_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling search/lookup tools. The agent must infer that this is the company-level entry point.

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