territory_search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and the return fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens if no matches are found. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key return fields. It's concise with no waste, though it could mention the limit parameter's default behavior, which is already in the schema.

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 a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, how (fuzzy), and what it returns. It lacks guidance on edge cases like empty results or pagination, but given the simplicity, it's reasonably complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds the context of fuzzy matching and return fields, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 for companies on Territory News with fuzzy name matching and returns specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like territory_get_tracked_companies by focusing on search rather than tracking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for finding companies by name, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other tools like territory_get_tracked_companies or territory_get_seller_context. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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