Search companies by technologies

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: case-insensitive search, 10,000+ technologies tracked, ranking by usage, and match logic. 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, description covers main behavior, match modes, case-insensitivity, and references sibling tool. Lacks explanation of ranking method and pagination, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 low (25%), but description compensates by explaining case-insensitivity for 'technologies' array and behavior of 'match' parameter. Does not cover 'page' or 'page_size' beyond schema defaults.

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?

Description clearly states it finds companies using given technologies, ranked by usage, and specifies case-insensitivity. It explicitly references sibling tool list_technologies for exploration, distinguishing 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?

Explains when to use the tool (find companies by technologies) and details match parameter behavior ('any' needs at least one, 'all' needs every one). Mentions case-insensitivity and suggests list_technologies for exploration. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is clear overall.

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