Search companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it searches SEC's master list, ranks exact ticker matches above name-contains matches, and caps results via limit. This is meaningful but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of response structure or error cases).

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage mandate, source/examples, and ranking/limit behavior. The structure front-loads the key instruction and uses line breaks to separate distinct ideas without 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?

For a simple 2-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what, when, how, and expected output examples. It even explains ranking behavior and limit constraints, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results at a practical level.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds functional meaning beyond the schema: query accepts either a name or ticker with real examples ('berkshire' returns BRK-B), and limit's purpose is reinforced ('caps the number of matches'). This elevates the parameter understanding beyond the basic schema definitions.

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: finds a company's ticker and CIK by ticker or company name. It clearly positions itself as the prerequisite lookup tool that other sibling tools implicitly depend on, distinguishing it from get_financials, list_filings, etc.

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 instructs 'Use this FIRST whenever you have a company name but not its ticker or CIK' and notes 'every other tool needs one of those.' This gives an unambiguous when-to-use rule and implies when-not-to-use (when identifiers are already known), with concrete examples.

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