search_firms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are ranked or how, whether filters are ANDed together, what happens with zero filters, any result limit or pagination, or the return shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filter dimensions grouped in the second. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence reads as a parameter dump rather than added meaning.

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 7-param, all-optional filter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers which axes can be filtered but omits return format, filter combination semantics, and empty-filter behavior — leaving real gaps for an agent to guess at.

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% and there are 7 bare-named parameters, so the description must compensate. It does list all the filter axes (budget, payment type, Trustpilot rating, consistency rules, overnight holding, activation fees, payout speed), which maps to the 7 parameters, but adds no semantics such as rating scale, budget currency, or default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search and filter futures prop trading firms') and even enumerates the filterable dimensions. It is clearly a discovery tool, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_firms or explains how it relates to compare_firms/get_firm.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search and filter by criteria' — an agent can infer this is the tool for narrowing down firms. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing is given despite four plausible sibling tools (list_firms, compare_firms, recommend, get_firm).

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