search_companies

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Search' implying a read operation but provides no details about pagination, rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral traits. Input schema hints at pagination via 'start_index' and 'items_per_page', but the description does not address this.

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 very concise, with no unnecessary words. However, brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It earns a high score for conciseness but not for structure, as it lacks any auxiliary details.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is too brief. It does not cover pagination, filtering options, or result structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'q' parameter ('by name or company number') but provides no information about 'start_index', 'restrictions', or 'items_per_page'. With 4 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 action (Search) and resource (companies), with specific search criteria (by name or company number). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_officers by focusing on companies, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does without providing context for selection.

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