search_company

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description wisely spends its budget elsewhere: the ranking order (exact ticker → substring → word overlap), case-insensitive matching, the underlying data source, and the expectation to cite source_url. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention truncation behavior or coverage limits of SEC's ticker file.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and return value, then a tight second paragraph for ranking, downstream usage, and citation. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with a full schema, safe annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what matches, how results are ranked, what the output key means, and how to reuse it downstream.

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 both 'name' (with examples) and 'limit'. The description's only additive parameter semantics is case-insensitivity, which is query behavior rather than a new parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Find companies'), the matching inputs (name or ticker, case-insensitive), and the concrete return ('10-digit CIKs'). It is clearly distinct from list_filings, get_financial_facts, and get_filing_section, which all consume a CIK rather than produce one.

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 routes the agent forward: 'Use the CIK with the other tools.' It also defines the ranking rules so the agent knows how to interpret the top result. It does not name specific alternative tools or say when NOT to use this one, 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.