autotask_search_companies

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 adds useful context: the default pagination behavior (25 results per page) and the ability to use the 'page' parameter for more results. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves gaps for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details on return values (since no output schema), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader Autotask ecosystem. For a search tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions the 'page' parameter but doesn't explain it further than the schema's description). Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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's purpose: 'Search for companies in Autotask.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('companies in Autotask'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_contacts' or 'autotask_search_projects,' which are similar search operations for different resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 some usage context by mentioning pagination ('Returns 25 results per page by default. Use page parameter for more results.'), which implies when to use the 'page' parameter. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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