find-company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search uses exact values, returns exactly one company ('best match'), and returns 'not_found' if no match exists. This is meaningful, though it doesn't detail how 'best match' is ranked or edge cases like case sensitivity.

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 concise two-sentence statement that front-loads the function and criteria. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple find operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the input method and the high-level output behavior (match or not_found). It does not specify the structure of the returned company object, but given the low complexity and no output schema, this is a minor gap and the description is largely complete.

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%: both 'by' and 'value' have descriptions. The tool description adds that the lookup is exact and that 'by' accepts email, phone, or name, matching the enum. This is a slight addition but not substantial beyond schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find a single company by exact email, phone, or name' with a specific verb, resource, and criteria. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying exact matching and single result, unlike list-companies or get-company.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single company by exact email, phone, or name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the exact-match criterion and 'single company' phrase imply distinct usage from listing or fetching by ID, which is evident from sibling names.

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