search_businesses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches filings, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or output characteristics (despite an output schema existing). The lack of read-only indication or result format is a gap.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It contains no redundant words. However, it could be more structured by explaining parameters explicitly, but given its brevity, it earns a 4.

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?

Given three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the state parameter's options, the default limit, and the structure of output (even though an output schema exists). Essential details for correct tool usage are missing.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It adds partial meaning for the 'query' parameter (search by name) and implies the 'state' parameter through 'across NY, FL, and CO', but does not explain that state can be null for all states or specify valid values. The 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for businesses by name within filings from three specific states (NY, FL, CO). While sibling tools have distinct names (check_usage, get_business_detail, get_new_formations), the description does not explicitly differentiate from them, but the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not suggest using get_business_detail after finding a business, nor does it explain when to prefer the sibling tools.

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