search_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: wildcard support, the list of returned fields (UID, legal form, registered office), pagination via offset, and language selection. This extends beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact (~100 words), opens with the core purpose in the first sentence, and then uses a neatly formatted args list. Every sentence adds operational value, with no filler or redundant statements.

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?

All 7 parameters are described, the search behavior (wildcards, filters) is clear, and the return format is summarized (list with UID, legal form, office). An output schema exists, so deep return-value documentation is unnecessary. The tool's moderate complexity is fully covered by the description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name with wildcard, canton as two-letter code, active_only filter, language choices, max_results range, offset for pagination, and legal_form_ids as comma-separated values. This turns an otherwise opaque schema into a usable interface.

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 clearly states the primary function: 'Search Swiss companies in the Zefix register by name.' This is a specific verb (Search) with a well-defined resource (Swiss companies in Zefix register) and method (by name), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on exact identifier lookups (get_company_by_uid, get_company_by_chid) or static lists (list_legal_forms).

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 explains how to use the tool (e.g., wildcard syntax, parameter options) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use get_company_by_uid for exact matches' or similar exclusions. The use case is implied by the name-based search focus, but not directly articulated as a decision guide.

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