Search companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of result ordering defaults, whether filters combine with AND/OR, or what an unfiltered call returns.

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 no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and an undocumented sort_by, the description leaves an agent unable to determine default result size, default ordering, or what happens with no criteria. For a search entry point it should say more.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description does map natural-language concepts to parameters (assignee → assignee_ids, location → city/country, tags → tags), which helps. It says nothing about sort_by, sort_direction, or pagination behavior, and sort_by in particular is undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (companies) and enumerates the searchable axes (name, tags, assignee, location). Sibling tools like search_people and search_opportunities are implicitly distinguished by the resource noun, but the description never states the distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools, no mention that all parameters are optional and an empty query returns everything, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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