list_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation and 'covered sectors' signals a scope limitation, but the description does not disclose output behavior, ordering, pagination, or permissions. It is acceptable for a simple read tool but not richly transparent.

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?

One short sentence with no filler or repetition; the core action and scope are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a single-parameter tool with an output schema, but it lacks usage-routing guidance and explicit behavioral caveats. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the agent to infer alternative-tool choices and additional behavior.

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?

Although the schema has no property descriptions, the description clarifies that the sector input selects which set of companies is listed ('in one of the three covered sectors'). With only one required enum parameter, this semantic link plus the schema's enum values is enough for correct invocation.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('List companies') and narrows the scope to 'one of the three covered sectors,' so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not explicitly enumerate the sectors or contrast with sibling tools like run_sector_screen, which leaves slight ambiguity, but the core purpose is clear.

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 given on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. The only hint is the sector scope, which implies a sector-based lookup, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues.

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