find_similar_companies

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 fails to mention any side effects (none expected), auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. The only behavioral hint is that it finds similar companies, but no details on how similarity is determined or if pagination applies.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 22 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain output format, similarity logic, or how to use the many filter parameters effectively. A more complete description would provide usage context for the filters.

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% (all 22 parameters have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning the three key input parameters but not providing new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter.

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 finds similar companies and specifies the three input methods (domain, LinkedIn URL, domain search ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_companies or lookup_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 implies the tool is used when you have a company to find similar ones, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like lookalike searches or other search tools. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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