search_company

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the non-mutating and open-ended nature of the search. The description adds the 'domain-restricted Exa search' mechanism and the output of 'authoritative source URLs,' which is useful but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or edge cases. Given annotation coverage, the description adds moderate behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance is in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'authoritative source URLs' but does not describe the response structure, whether it returns a single URL or multiple, or how to handle a not-found case. It also lacks any guidance on parameter usage. For a tool meant to be the entry point, this is incomplete and could cause an agent to call it incorrectly or misinterpret results.

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 0% per the signal, though the schema itself includes some inline descriptions for date, sector, and companyDomain. The tool description does not reference any parameter or explain how to provide the company name or other fields. It says 'resolve a company name' but does not indicate that the name belongs in the 'company' field of the context object. This is a significant gap since the description should compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Discover'), a resource ('a company's official website, LinkedIn, and registry presence'), and a method ('domain-restricted Exa search'). It also explicitly frames its role as the first step to resolve a company name to authoritative source URLs, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on already-resolved companies.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use this first to resolve a company name to authoritative source URLs before calling other company tools.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive and implies the correct sequencing, making it unambiguous which tool to invoke initially and why.

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