company_research_exa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'finds comprehensive information' and 'provides insights', it doesn't describe what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, cost implications, or how the tool handles ambiguous company names. For a research tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that clearly communicate the tool's purpose and capabilities. The first sentence establishes the core function, and the second elaborates on the types of insights provided. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more specific about the tool's scope relative to siblings.

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 research tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the results will be in, how comprehensive the information actually is, whether there are limitations on company types or regions, or what happens when no information is found. The description covers basic purpose but leaves too many practical usage questions unanswered.

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 both parameters ('companyName' and 'numResults'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions researching companies generally but provides no additional context about parameter usage, formatting requirements, or search behavior.

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's purpose: 'Research companies using Exa AI' with specific resources ('businesses, organizations, corporations') and outcomes ('comprehensive information', 'insights into company operations, news, financial information, and industry analysis'). It distinguishes from generic search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linkedin_search_exa' or 'deep_researcher_start'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools including 'linkedin_search_exa', 'web_search_exa', and 'deep_researcher_start', there's no indication of when this company-specific research tool is preferred over other search or research tools. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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