search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: AND logic for filters, pagination for no-filter queries, date format, sorting options, exact vs fuzzy matching, and a tip to use list_users for owner_id. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence defines core purpose, then expands on filters, pagination, date format, sorting, exact search, and a helpful hint. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 10 parameters, optional fields, and pagination, the description is remarkably complete. It covers format, combination logic, default behavior, and provides a cross-tool reference. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers most parameters (company_name, date range, owner_id, sort_by, sort_order, exact_search) but omits explicit mention of limit and individual date fields. Still adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches for companies by name, date range, or owner, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_candidates. It specifies the resource (companies) and filter types, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 advises providing at least one filter for targeted results and explains behavior without filters (pagination). It does not explicitly contrast with other search tools or state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies this is for companies.

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