search_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the behavior ('Returns matching companies with their IDs') and the scope ('across all brands'), but does not disclose potential partial matching, sorting, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clearly worded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, scope, and return 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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the search target, scope, and output format. It could mention that it returns a list, but 'matching companies' implies this. No significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter (query) is fully described in the schema ('Search query (company name)') and matches the description's 'by name'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema, only clarifying the cross-brand scope, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('company by name across all brands'), and clearly states the return value (matching companies with IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sectors or get_company_profile by focusing on name-based search.

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 implies use when you need to find a company by name and retrieve its ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear, but there is no direct comparison.

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