crm_search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), or what happens on errors. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with complex parameters.

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 concise with a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. There is no wasted text, but it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity. It efficiently states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, though more detail could improve clarity.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the search mechanism, result format, error handling, or how to interpret parameters like 'after' for pagination. For a search tool with nested filtering logic, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'company-specific filters' which loosely relates to the 'filterGroups' parameter, but does not explain any of the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify how filters work or what properties can be used.

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 'Search companies with company-specific filters' clearly indicates a search operation on companies, but it's vague about what 'company-specific filters' means. It distinguishes from non-company tools but not clearly from sibling tools like crm_search_contacts or crm_search_leads. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the search scope or capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads, crm_search_objects), the description does not indicate whether this is for company-specific searches only, what contexts it applies in, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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