ares_search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral requirement (at least one filter) and output characteristics (paginated results with totals), which go beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe error handling, query combination semantics (e.g., AND/OR), or potential rate limits, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 minimal yet informative: three sentences cover the core action and filter list, the usage constraint, and the output format. No filler words or redundant details, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid summary of purpose, usage constraint, and output. It mentions pagination and totals, which is helpful without an output schema. However, it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools to prevent mistaken selection, so it's not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The tool description adds value by summarizing the key filter groups and introducing the 'at least one filter' constraint, which is not represented in the schema (no required fields). This elevates the semantic guidance beyond the schema alone.

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's function: 'Search Czech companies by structured filters' and enumerates the specific filter types (name, postal code, municipality, legal form, CZ-NACE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ares_search_by_address (address-based) and ares_lookup_company (exact company lookup).

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 provides a clear operational guideline: 'At least one filter is required to avoid full-registry scans,' indicating when the tool should be used and warning against parameter-less calls. It implies structured filter searches are the intended use but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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