run_ca_companies_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a cost model (1 point per returned record) and lists return fields, but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, and search matching semantics.

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 sentences with purpose front-loaded. The colon list of return fields is slightly dense but overall the description is concise and every sentence contributes relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (name, corporation number, status, business number, link), which is helpful. It does not explain pagination behavior despite start_page and max_items parameters, but the schema covers those, so the description is largely complete for a simple search tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by indicating that the keyword parameter accepts not just corporation name but also corporation number or business number, which the schema's keyword description ('Corporation name') does not convey.

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 (Search) and resource (federal corporations in the Corporations Canada registry), and clarifies searchable fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_ca_companies or run_ca_company_filings, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

Mentions the fields that can be searched (name, corporation number, business number), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as run_ca_companies. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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