search_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that matching is fuzzy/partial, but stays silent on ambiguity handling, ranking of results, and what the response shape looks like — value added, but not rich context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the resource, and inline examples — no filler, nothing buried.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition should say what comes back (a list of candidate symbols?) and how ambiguous names are resolved. For a low-complexity lookup tool that omission is a real gap an agent will notice on first call.

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. It documents `query` well with input forms and examples, but says nothing about `limit` (default 10) or any maximum, leaving one of two parameters unexplained in both schema and 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?

Uses a specific verb ("Find") and a precise resource (a company's Screener.in symbol), plus concrete input examples ("caplin", "hdfc bank"). It clearly reads as a name-to-symbol resolution step, distinct from data-returning siblings like company_overview or financial_statement, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 implies the resolution use case and states the two accepted input forms (full/partial name, part of a ticker), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do when multiple or zero matches come back. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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