zefix_search_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context about pagination info and response format, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured with a headline, summary, and clear Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose. Slightly verbose but efficient with no wasted information.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, returns, and usage context. It mentions pagination and response format options. However, it omits error conditions or rate limits. Given the output schema and annotations, it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description's Args section repeats and slightly augments this (e.g., referencing zefix_list_legal_forms for legal_form_ids). Since schema coverage is effectively high, the description adds marginal new meaning.

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 for companies in the Swiss commercial register by name, canton, and legal form. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like zefix_get_company and zefix_verify_company.

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 suggests ideal use cases (supplier checks, contract screenings, procurement due diligence) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The context signals list siblings, but the description lacks that comparison.

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