cfpb_suggest_company

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the database context and the suggestion use case, but it does not disclose behavior such as return shape, ordering, or behavior on no matches—gaps that matter because there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, with the primary function first and the use case second. There is no redundancy with the title or annotations, and every sentence contributes either purpose or usage context.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only suggestion tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the purpose, and the main use case. It could have specified what the suggestion response contains (e.g., just names vs. IDs), but 'suggest company names' and the schema's example values are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 ('text' and 'size') are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Autocomplete/suggest') and resource ('company names from the CFPB complaint database'), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. The phrase 'before searching complaints' distinguishes it from cfpb_search_complaints and other CFPB siblings without relying on the title or schema.

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?

It states a clear when-to-use: 'Useful for finding the exact company name before searching complaints,' which routes an agent to use this as a precondition/normalization step. It does not name an alternative tool or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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