scout_find_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any permissions needed, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves or what constraints exist.

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 a single sentence with an example, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating the example or adding a brief clarification about the tool's scope.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should at least indicate what the returned list contains (e.g., names, IDs) or whether it supports pagination. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the format and completeness of results.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters: 'What to find' and 'Maximum entities to return'. The description adds value by specifying that the query is natural-language and provides an example ('Series A fintech companies in Europe'), clarifying the intended format beyond the schema's minimal 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?

The description clearly states the tool builds a list of entities matching a natural-language query, with an example. The verb 'Build a list' and resource 'entities' are specific, and the name 'find_all' aligns. It distinguishes from siblings like scout_search (web search) and scout_scrape (web scraping) by focusing on entity list building.

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 provides an example query but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like scout_answer or scout_company. The usage is implied through the example, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for other tasks.

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