cfpb_suggest_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe reading. The description adds that the tool uses the CFPB complaint database, which is helpful context. No additional behavioral details (like rate limits or authentication) are provided, but the annotations cover the key safety aspect. Score reflects adequate disclosure beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence Front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance. Every phrase adds value.

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 autocomplete tool, the description combined with schema and annotations covers the essential information. It lacks explicit mention of the output format (expected list of company names), but this is often implicit for suggest tools. Sibling tools provide contrast. Slight gap in not describing return structure.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear examples for 'text' (e.g., 'wells', 'bank of') and default for 'size'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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's purpose: 'Autocomplete/suggest company names from the CFPB complaint database.' It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and specifies the resource (company names) and database. It also distinguishes from sibling complaint search tools by noting it helps find the exact company name before searching.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for finding the exact company name before searching complaints.' This implies when to use it (as a preparatory step) and indirectly differentiates from search tools. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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