find_company

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are disambiguated name variants with complaint counts and first/last dates, which is useful, but it says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs substring), the effect of the limit default of 25, ordering, or truncation, which matters for an unfiltered lookup.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: purpose first, then the disambiguation rationale with examples, then the hand-off guidance. Nothing is redundant, though the example list and the two-branch closing clause make it longer than a minimal statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the useful parts (counts, first/last dates). It is close to complete for a lookup tool; the remaining gap is that an agent cannot tell whether the search is exact-match or contains-match, which is precisely the distinction the sibling company_contains hinges on.

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 0% across two parameters. The description gives partial meaning to 'name' (it may be a firm name whose variants are returned, and exact names are the portable form), but 'limit' is never mentioned and no format or matching rules for 'name' are supplied, so it only half compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find companies by name') and immediately explains the CFPB naming-variant problem that gives the tool its reason to exist, citing concrete examples ('EQUIFAX, INC.', 'Equifax Information Services LLC'). It also implicitly separates itself from company_profile and company_contains, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result ('pass the exact names you want to other tools via company') and names the alternative path for the bulk case ('use company_contains for all variants at once'). That is a when-to-use plus a when-to-use-something-else in one sentence.

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