boond_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 only says 'Search companies by name or criteria' and doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, filtering semantics, or whether the search is fuzzy/exact. The schema shows page/limit parameters, but the description doesn't explain how they affect behavior.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could add more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain how to construct a query, what results look like, or how pagination works. An agent would have to guess at the semantics of 'criteria' and the response format.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'name or criteria' which loosely maps to the 'query' parameter, but it doesn't explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters or clarify what 'criteria' means. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 'Search companies by name or criteria' clearly identifies the verb (search), the resource (companies), and the search mechanism (by name or criteria). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_companies_get (which retrieves a specific company) and boond_companies_create/update (which mutate companies), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for searching companies, but it doesn't state when to prefer it over boond_companies_get or other search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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