find_employer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add a genuine behavioral trait beyond annotations: matching is by prefix ('Start of the employer name'), which tells the agent a partial substring will not work, and 'legal employer entities' signals entity-level rather than trade-name results.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the docstring-style Args block adds real value via examples. Slightly verbose formatting, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully described. What remains missing is only the downstream workflow context (which sibling consumes the resolved entity), a minor gap for a one-param lookup.

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 schema only says 'Query' is a string, so the description carries the full burden. It does so adequately: prefix-match semantics plus two concrete examples ('Deloitte', 'Amazon Web Services') make the expected input unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the legal employer entities a name matches', plus the follow-on intent ('pick an exact one'). It is clearly a name-resolution lookup, distinct from siblings like company_sponsorship or compare_companies, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause 'so you can pick an exact one' implies this is a disambiguation step before calling a detail tool, but that workflow is only implied. There are no explicit when-not conditions and no sibling tools are named as alternatives.

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