discover_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (search companies, return ranked IDs) and the network scope. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or other side effects. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function, input, and output (company IDs). It also relates to sibling tools via the usage hint. Minor absence: not detailing the format of the ranked matches beyond IDs, but still sufficient for an agent.

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 context for the query parameter ('natural-language query') and the overall goal, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions for limit and category.

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 finds e-commerce companies matching a natural language query and returns ranked matches with company IDs. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly advising use when the user asks about a product type or brand, setting it apart from product search tools.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use this first when the user asks about a product type or brand') and explains the output's role in subsequent product searches. However, it lacks explicit statements about when not to use it or direct alternatives beyond the implied sequence.

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