search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses credit cost (1 per call, 0 when there are no results) and the key restriction that only attribute columns are retrievable, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or the result limit behavior (max 5).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the purpose first, then cost, then the field constraint. No filler or redundancy within the text itself.

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 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and a field constraint but leaves the result format, the hard 5-item cap context, and sibling routing unaddressed. Adequate but with visible 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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's field-related constraints ('only attribute columns', 'don't request columns you already have') largely duplicate the fields parameter's own schema description, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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+resource: searching a list of company candidates by company name or alias. An agent can identify the operation, though the description does not explicitly name the sibling (get_company/resolve_company) it contrasts with — that routing hint only appears in the schema's fields description.

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?

Gives one real usage rule ('don't request columns you already have'), which is genuinely actionable, but offers no guidance on when to choose this over resolve_company or get_company, nor any prerequisite conditions.

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