search_company

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: matching is accent- and case-insensitive, which affects how the agent should phrase queries. It says nothing about ranking or what happens when nothing matches, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its output, followed by the workflow rule. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated.

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 3-parameter search with full schema documentation, annotations and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: that this tool exists to obtain cd_cvm for downstream corporate tools. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit and status. The description's list of identifier kinds essentially restates the `query` schema description, and it says nothing about `limit` or `status`, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the CVM code (`cd_cvm`) of a company') plus the accepted lookup keys (name, CNPJ, ticker, code). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_companies, search_fund and resolve, since the output is explicitly an identifier rather than a record set.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'the entry point for every corporate tool' because siblings key on cd_cvm, never the ticker — strong when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closest siblings (resolve, list_companies), so the agent must infer when to prefer those instead.

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