filed_search_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns matching companies with registration details, which provides basic output transparency, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation.

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 sentence that immediately states the core purpose, lists supported states, and summarizes return fields. Every word is essential, with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 includes return details (entity type, status, formation date), which is helpful since no output schema is provided. However, it omits mention of pagination controls or the limit parameter, which are defined in the schema but not referenced in the description.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the search is by name across states, which aligns with the name and state parameters, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 searches US business entities by name across 9 specified states, which distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like filed_search_contracts or filed_search_sec that search different domains.

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 when to use (searching for business entities by name or registered agent) and lists the supported states, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity despite clear sibling distinctions.

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