hunt_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does disclose the core behavior: searching an official site and extracting contacts, social media, CNPJ, and partners. However, it does not mention limitations, data reliability, or whether this is purely a read-only web intelligence operation, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 tightly organized with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is largely complete for invocation: inputs are explained, returns are summarized, and an output schema exists for a full dossier. The main gap is the lack of guidance around when to choose this tool instead of related siblings, which matters given the tool set.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains company_name as company or brand name, and domain_or_url as the official site that speeds up the search when already known. Both parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it states it builds a 360-degree company dossier by searching the official website, extracting contacts, social media, CNPJ, and partners. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scrape_website or consult_cnpj, which cover only a single aspect.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided relative to sibling tools. The only usage hint is that providing domain_or_url speeds up the search, but it never explains when to choose hunt_company over extract_contacts, consult_cnpj, or hunt_person.

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