Search Companies (Typeahead)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the ranking system ('Lower ranking_score = better match'), provides example queries showing partial matching behavior, and describes the return format with a JSON example. While annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive), the description adds practical implementation details that help the agent understand how to interpret results.

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 well-structured with clear sections (What it does, Example queries, Returns, When to use, When NOT to use) that make information easy to find. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise - the JSON example is detailed but necessary for clarity. Overall, most sentences earn their place by adding distinct value.

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?

For a search tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the tool's behavior, provides concrete examples, shows the return format, and gives clear usage boundaries. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed JSON example in the description.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value through example queries that illustrate the 'query' parameter usage ('Harmonic', 'stripe.com', 'Str'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 with specific verbs ('quick autocomplete search', 'returns company matches') and resources ('companies by name or domain'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling harmonic_search_companies by stating this is for 'fast lookups when you know part of the company name' versus 'complex searches with multiple criteria'.

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 explicit guidance with dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It lists specific use cases (quick lookup, autocomplete suggestions, finding by domain) and explicitly names the alternative tool (harmonic_search_companies) for complex searches, giving clear boundaries for tool selection.

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