search_companies

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits — results are sorted by descending revenue and page_size is capped at 40 — but says nothing about read-only safety, whether min_revenue_mln excludes companies with unknown revenue, or what a page beyond the last returns.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a tight per-parameter list; every line adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess. Nothing is repeated and the primary intent is front-loaded.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations and an existing output schema, the description does enough: it explains filtering semantics, ordering and the page-size ceiling, and points to the two lookup tools needed to construct valid values. The missing piece is pagination behavior for the 'page' parameter, which leaves a small but real hole for an agent iterating results.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description explains five of six parameters meaningfully: category accepts a name, slug or id, query matches name/INN/city, region is a region reference, min_revenue_mln is a threshold in millions of rubles, and page_size is bounded at 40. Only 'page' is left undocumented, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('Найти компании в каталоге Saby') plus the result ordering ('по убыванию выручки'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as company_card, but the search semantics are unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'search'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over company_card or how to combine it with shortlist_add. The cross-references '(см. find_categories)' and '(см. find_regions)' are genuinely useful for resolving valid values, but they guide parameter filling rather than tool selection.

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