search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action 'search' implied by the name and adds no details about return format, pagination, search semantics, or whether it supports partial matches. This is a significant gap for a search 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 concise—one short sentence with no redundancy—but it is under-specified. It achieves brevity at the expense of needed details, making it borderline between effective conciseness and minimalism that lacks substance.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what results look like, how many companies can be returned, or any edge cases. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more descriptive context is needed for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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 schema has a single required 'query' string with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what the query should contain (e.g., company name, domain, partial string) or how it is used in the search. While 'search for companies' gives a general hint, the parameter semantics are left largely to inference.

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 'Search for companies in Freshdesk' uses the specific verb 'search' and the resource 'companies', clearly stating the tool's core action. It does not, however, differentiate this from sibling tools like find_company_by_name or list_companies, which also relate to company retrieval.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_company_by_name or list_companies. There is no context about preferred search scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent gets no direction on tool selection.

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