search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and fails to mention critical traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite parameters like 'limit_by' and 'offset_by'), data freshness, or permission requirements. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. While it is efficient, it could be slightly longer to include essential behavioral hints without becoming verbose. For a straightforward search tool, this level of conciseness is adequate but not exemplary.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, default behavior, ordering, or how parameters interact. An agent would struggle to use the tool effectively without additional inference or trial and error.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the tool description does not need to elaborate further. The description mentions 'ICP filters', which broadly aligns with parameters like industries, locations, etc., but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('companies'), and the method ('by ICP filters'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'search_leads' tool, which targets leads. The term 'ICP filters' is specific enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description implies usage when searching for companies via ICP criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_leads'. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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