Find companies by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context; it does, by disclosing the underlying GetCompanies call, the CompanyName filter behavior, and the parent-account scoping with the ALSO_CLOUD_PARENT_ACCOUNT_ID fallback. It stops short of stating match semantics (prefix vs substring) or result-count limits.

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 tight sentences; the preference statement is front-loaded and the negative routing instruction follows immediately. 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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope default, and alternatives. The only real gap is expected result shape and how partial-name matching behaves, which an agent might reasonably wonder about given the 'fragment' input.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the fragment example and the env-var default. The description only restates the CompanyName filtering and parentAccountId scoping, adding no new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('locating a company by name') and makes the preference explicit with 'PREFERRED'. It also names the concrete backend call (GetCompanies with a CompanyName filter), so an agent knows exactly what this does relative to search-style siblings.

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?

Explicitly excludes get_reports / execute_report ('Do NOT use ... to search companies'), which is a real routing hazard. It does not, however, disambiguate against the very close sibling get_companies or get_company_by_vat_id, so the agent must infer that 'PREFERRED' means prefer this over those.

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