search_company_notes

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

With no annotations, the description details matching logic (topic rules, synonyms, facet, blocking), return format (title, confidence, excerpt, table), and API protection via max_companies. Missing: authentication, rate limits beyond max_companies, and whether read-only.

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?

Description is front-loaded with core purpose and matching philosophy. Parameter list is clear. Slightly verbose in matching explanation, but each sentence adds value. Overall efficient.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, the description covers parameter meanings, return format fields, and API protection. Lacks explicit return structure details (e.g., data type of confidence). References sibling tool list_note_topics for topic keys.

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%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter is described with purpose, allowed values (market codes, industry code prefixes), default (year), and special notes (topic can be key or free-text). Examples provided for topic.

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 it searches financial statement notes of multiple companies for specific accounting issues with precision. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company_note and list_note_topics by specifying cross-company search and topic-based matching.

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 when to use (precise search, avoid noise) and references list_note_topics for topic registration. It implies precision priority, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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