search_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return fields (ticker and CIK) and a real scope constraint (US-listed only). It says nothing about match behavior (fuzzy vs exact), result count limits, or what happens when nothing matches, which matters for a search 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the input modes trailing. Nothing wasted and nothing padded.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and inputs but leaves result-set behavior (single vs multiple matches, ranking, empty results) unspecified. Adequate, but an agent must guess how to interpret the response.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as 'Query', so the description is the only source of meaning. It compensates well by stating the accepted values are a company name or a ticker fragment, which is exactly what an agent needs to form a valid call.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a precise resource ('a US-listed company's ticker and CIK') and the accepted input forms. An agent can tell this apart from ask_filing or get_financials, though it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named index_company sibling.

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 implied by 'by name or ticker fragment', which tells the agent what to supply, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. must the company be indexed first?), and no mention of alternatives like index_company.

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