search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that manual addition is possible (a potential write operation) but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or read-only guarantees. No information about rate limits, auth, or return format is provided.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately providing actionable source-specific instructions. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the core purpose and main usage paths. It omits mention of the 'linkedin' source (present in the schema) and does not specify return values, but the description is sufficient for typical use cases.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining that 'query' can be a company name or job search term and clarifies the intent of the 'source' enum values (manual = add directly, indeed = search postings), surpassing the schema's generic descriptions.

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 function: searching for companies on job boards or adding them manually. It explicitly differentiates between manual addition and searching Indeed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like research_company or add_job_posting.

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 clear context on when to use each source: 'Use source=\'manual\' to add a specific company by name, or source=\'indeed\' to search job postings.' It lacks explicit exclusion statements or comparisons to sibling tools, but gives practical usage direction.

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