cfpb_suggest_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing safe read-only behavior. The description adds workflow context (finding exact company name) but does not disclose additional behaviors like return format, pagination, or naming quirks. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, source, and usage context. It does not describe the output format, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, this is a minor gap. A perfect score would require a bit more behavioral detail, but this is well above average.

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% — both text and size have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'Autocomplete/suggest' somewhat implies partial text input, but the schema already shows examples.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Autocomplete/suggest company names from the CFPB complaint database.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CFPB tools like cfpb_search_complaints or cfpb_complaint_detail, and the action is concrete.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'before searching complaints' to find the exact company name. This provides clear context and implies the alternative (cfpb_search_complaints) without naming it explicitly. It does not include exclusion criteria, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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