run_owler_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 does add genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the fact that results come from the site's own suggestion list rather than a full-text index. However, it says nothing about pagination beyond max_items, empty-result behavior, or auth requirements, leaving real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return fields and cost. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, name, logo, profile link) and the billing rule, which is what an agent needs to plan a call. For a two-parameter, read-only search this is largely sufficient; only the lack of differentiation from run_owler_companies and of pagination semantics keeps it from a 5.

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%, with both 'keyword' and 'max_items' documented inline (including the 250 cap and an example), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how the suggestion-list behavior interacts with the keyword input.

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 ('Search Owler companies by name') and even names the underlying mechanism ('the site's own suggestion list'), which separates it from the sibling run_owler_companies profile lookup. It lists the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a name-to-id resolver. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: by advertising 'company id' as a return field, the description hints this is the lookup step before calling run_owler_companies. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives among the many company-search siblings (run_owler_companies, run_owler_companies_competitors, run_owler_companies_news).

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