search_company_context

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

Discloses the endpoint, payment requirement, and x402 challenge response. Without annotations, this partially fulfills transparency. Missing details on success response, rate limits, or behavior changes when settled.

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 with no filler. The first states purpose, the second critical behavioral notes. Every word adds value.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core functionality and a key failure mode. However, it lacks output structure details, which would help an AI agent anticipate the response format.

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?

Only parameter 'q' is documented in the schema with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a search wrapper for companies via the specified endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_risk_summary. The verb 'search' and resource 'companies' are explicit, but 'thin wrapper' is vague.

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?

Mentions cost and potential 402 error, which are important usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., for raw search before risk summary) or provide exclusion criteria.

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