company_episodes_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explain access-control behavior, result ordering, pagination, filtering semantics, or what 'observed outcomes' means operationally. The word 'authorized' hints at permission gating but leaves it unexplained.

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 with a front-loaded verb and no filler. It is efficient and easily parsed, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive guidance.

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 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling search tools, this one-sentence description is not enough to enable correct invocation. It lacks query semantics, result format expectations, and any relationship to related tools.

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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description names none of them. It provides almost no semantic context for query, limit, clearance, tenant_id, groups_json, projects_json, or principal_id, leaving the agent to guess how these parameters affect the search.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('authorized goal-oriented work episodes and observed outcomes'), making its purpose understandable. It is distinguishable from company_episode_get, which targets a single episode, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other search siblings like search_memory or company_memory_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_memory, company_memory_search, or company_episode_get. The description states what it does but not when it is the right choice, what scope it covers, or what it intentionally excludes.

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