search_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately states the output (list of matching companies with URLs) but does not mention any potential limitations, authorization requirements, or discrepancies like exact-match vs partial-match results. The behavior is straightforward, but the description adds minimal context beyond the basic functionality.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, scope, and expected result. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to clarity.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, what input it takes, and what it returns. It lacks guidance on how this tool fits into a larger workflow (e.g., pairing with get_company_data), but for its standalone functionality, it is adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, with the 'query' parameter fully documented as 'Company name or NSE/BSE ticker symbol'. The description mirrors this information, adding only the context of 'Indian listed companies on screener.in'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: searching for Indian listed companies by name or ticker symbol on screener.in, and returning a list of matches with URLs. The verb 'Search' is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_company_data' which presumably fetches detailed data.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find companies by name or ticker. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_company_data for detailed information after searching'. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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