search_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a basic lookup but does not say whether matching is exact or partial, whether multiple results can be returned, or what the limit parameter affects. This could lead an agent to expect a single unique result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and input modes, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 output schema presumably covers return values, and the description covers the primary query semantics. Still, with no annotations, the definition lacks guidance on search behavior such as partial matches, multiple candidates, and the meaning of the limit parameter. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add important meaning by explaining that the query parameter accepts a name or ticker. However, it says nothing about the limit parameter, though the limit name and default make its purpose partially inferable.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('public company and its SEC CIK'), and the accepted inputs ('name or ticker'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are about actions, approvals, metrics, and comparisons.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to resolve a company name or ticker to a public company and its CIK. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps directly with this lookup purpose.

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