List companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions pagination, substring match for industry, and exact values for accounting_standard. However, it does not describe default ordering, return fields, or whether the tool is read-only. For a listing tool without output schema, more behavioral detail would improve transparency.

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 two sentences and 35 words, extremely concise with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action ('List companies filtered by...') and includes essential details without extraneous content.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers filtering and pagination adequately. However, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., fields returned) and does not clarify default behavior when no filters are applied. The universe size context is helpful but not sufficient for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a schema description. The description adds value by clarifying that industry is a 'substring match' and providing examples ('Automobiles', 'Pharmaceuticals'), and listing all accounting_standard values. This goes beyond the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it lists companies with filtering options. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'companies'. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like compare_companies or search_company, the mention of 'browse the ~3,600-company universe' implies a broad browsing use case, distinguishing it from more specific tools.

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 says 'Use to browse the ~3,600-company universe,' providing some usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives directly. The sibling names give implicit guidance, but explicit exclusion is missing.

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