company-search

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 does add a genuinely useful behavioral trait absent from structured fields — the cost and payment mechanism ('$0.020 per call, x402/USDC'). However, it discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape of results beyond three field labels, so gaps remain for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loaded and reasonably short, but 'find a company by name or SIREN' is stated twice and the 'funnel' framing is repeated in both the positioning and usage sentences. Some redundancy that does not earn its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more. It names three result fields and the cost, but gives no return structure, result count semantics, or auth context. Adequate for routing, incomplete for invocation confidence.

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 a syntax hint ('Parameter: ?q=name'), but the schema's own properties are top/query/results with a required 'q' — the description does not clarify this naming mismatch or explain top/results, so it adds only marginal value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find French companies) and the fields surfaced (identity, activity, status), and distinguishes itself from the sibling company-profile by positioning itself as the entry point. An agent can tell it apart from company-profile without opening either schema.

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 names the workflow: 'First step of the French company funnel: find a company by name or SIREN, get its SIREN, then call company-profile for the full dossier.' The when-to-use condition and the follow-up alternative are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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