crehq_companies_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool handles messy/alias names (e.g., 'mcdonald-s' → McDonald's Corporation) and performs full-text search with canonical ID resolution. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing return format or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a helpful example and explicit workflow instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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?

While purpose and usage are excellently covered, the description does not explain the response structure, how to handle multiple matches, or behavior when no match is found. Since there is no output schema, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about result interpretation. The strong workflow context partially compensates, but completeness is not fully achieved.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'q' is a brand/company name, gives an alias example, and ties the parameter to the canonical-ID resolution purpose. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'Search term' description.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search CREHQ's brand universe by name to resolve a company to its canonical CREHQ id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like crehq_companies_list by emphasizing the resolution to a canonical ID and providing a concrete alias example.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'ALWAYS use this first to get a company_id before calling company detail, credit signals, franchise/FDD, real-estate, contacts, occupancy, whitespace, or co-tenancy tools.' This names specific alternative tools and clearly defines the prerequisite workflow.

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