Search companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals typo-tolerance via autocomplete index, p95 latency, return fields, and market coverage. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the tool name and 'search' semantics imply it.

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 four sentences, each providing distinct value: action, performance, return fields, use case, and coverage. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it effectively concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and return fields. It could mention result structure or pagination, but it is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds slight context by mapping q to name/partial/address, but does not provide additional semantic detail for limit, country, or active_only beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool searches European companies by name, partial name, or address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting fuzzy queries and returning ranked hits with specific fields, while explicitly mentioning lookup_company and get_company_details for follow-up.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for fuzzy find a company called… queries before drilling into details with lookup_company or get_company_details.' This gives both when to use and names alternatives, making the usage context very clear.

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