companies_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only adds 'using compact metadata', which is vague and may describe either the input or output. It does not mention matching behavior, response format, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that the agent is encouraged to use as a workflow entry point.

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 concise sentence with two clauses, front-loading the primary action ('Find companies') and adding a strategic usage hint. There is no redundancy or wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool, though it could have been slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description omits critical usage context such as how the query is matched, what values are valid for 'source', and what 'compact metadata' means. Given the tool's role as a workflow starting point, the description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, limit, source). While 'query' and 'limit' are somewhat intuitive, 'source' with a default of 'all' is ambiguous and could refer to data source, publication source, or something else. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 the tool's function: 'Find companies using compact metadata'. It goes beyond a tautology by indicating the resource (companies) and hints at the output nature (compact metadata). It differentiates from sibling search tools (disclosures_search, filing_search, major_holders_search) by targeting companies specifically, and the phrase 'start most company workflows here' signals a primary entry point.

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 use context: 'start most company workflows here' tells the agent this is the recommended initial step for company-related tasks. It implies that for detailed company data, one would use more specialized tools (e.g., company_facts, financials_query), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. This gives solid guidance without being exhaustive.

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