Find companies by person

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context: matching is by name only, common names return homonyms, and results should be treated as leads rather than proof of identity.

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 brief and front-loaded: purpose first, then matching limitations, then interpretation guidance. Every sentence earns its place without repeating schema defaults or annotation hints.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what entities are returned, how matching works, and how to interpret the results. It leaves only_active and pagination details to inference, but those are reasonably self-evident from parameter names and defaults.

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 schema documents last_name and first_names, and the description adds the key nuance that matching is name-only, which affects how those parameters behave. However, it does not explain only_active or page semantics, so with 50% schema coverage it only partially compensates for undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific purpose: find companies where a person is listed as a director or elected official, with French equivalents for precision. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_companies, which presumably search by company rather than by person.

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 intended use case is implied by the title and description, and the homonym caveat tells the agent how to treat results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as search_companies.

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