Search company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a search operation returning data, which is non-destructive, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description mentions the returned fields (code, English name, industry, accounting standard), which is complete for a search tool. The parameters are well-described, and sibling tools are available in context. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or max results beyond the limit parameter.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that the query can be a name in English or Japanese or a 4-digit securities code, and specifies the return fields. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 searches listed Japanese companies by name or code, returning matching companies with specific fields. It uses a specific verb 'search' and resource 'company', and distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_companies, get_financials, and list_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 states 'Use this to resolve a name to a code,' providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context signals for sibling tools help. Overall, the usage context is clear.

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