Search UK companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it discloses the returned match fields, says the result is sufficient to choose a company without a follow-up call, and describes the failure shape with a code field. It does not discuss read-only safety explicitly or rate/auth constraints, but the search semantics make the operation type clear.

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 front-loaded and efficient: purpose first, returned fields second, downstream usage third, error behavior last. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately names the key returned fields and the error object. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the three parameters, it gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents query, start_index, and items_per_page. The description reinforces name-based search but adds no meaningful syntax, matching behavior, or pagination semantics 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 and resource: search UK companies by name. It also clarifies the return shape and how the result connects to sibling tools via company_number, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from company_profile, company_officers, and company_filing_history.

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 clearly implies this is the first-step lookup and explicitly says to use the returned company_number with the other tools. It does not spell out when-not-to-use it or name each sibling alternative, but the intended workflow is clear.

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