search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the lookup behavior and that the result includes an EDINET code, but it does not disclose matching behavior, read-only guarantees, or response shape. This is a moderate gap for an otherwise simple search tool.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by usage guidance and the key alternative tool.

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 3-parameter search tool with fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what to do, when to do it, and which sibling to prefer instead. It stops short of describing the exact output structure, but it does say a company record is returned.

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 schema already fully documents q, limit, and include_delisted. The description adds context about needing the EDINET code for other tools, but it does not materially enhance parameter understanding 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the resource: company name, EDINET code, or securities code to a company record. It also differentiates from screen_companies by stating this tool is for when you know WHO you are looking for.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this first when you know WHO...') and names the alternative ('use screen_companies instead') for a distinct case. No inference is needed.

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