search_companies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the search behavior (filtering) and provides an example, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens on no results, or any rate/pagination details. The example is helpful but limited.

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 sentences plus a practical example. The first sentence immediately states the function, the second clarifies use cases, and the example concretely demonstrates usage. No filler words, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search purpose and example usage but omits details about the result format, pagination (limit parameter hints at it), error behavior, or any side effects. For a search tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks comprehensive detail.

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% with each parameter having a clear description. The description summarizes the parameters in prose ('by ticker, sector, leverage ratio, and risk flags') and adds an example, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The example illustrates usage but does not explain parameter interactions or value ranges.

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 the verb 'Search' and specifies the resource 'companies' with clear filtering dimensions (ticker, sector, leverage ratio, risk flags). It differentiates from siblings like 'search_bonds' and search_pricing' which target different entities, and provides an example that reinforces the purpose.

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 three usage scenarios: 'find companies with specific characteristics, compare leverage across peers, or screen for structural subordination risk.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the context from siblings implies when other search tools are appropriate.

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