Find a company on Codal

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing ranking behavior: exact symbol or name matches first, then prefix matches, then containing-name matches, with exchange-listed companies before unlisted ones. It also states the coverage (~5,400 publishers) and that `matched` is the total hit count.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, ranking details, coverage, and return-count semantics. Each sentence adds useful information with no repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides enough context: purpose, routing, ranking, scope, and what `matched` means. No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the return fields and count.

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 the schema already documents `query` and `limit` thoroughly. The description adds ranking and coverage context but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: finding companies and funds on codal.ir by symbol or name, returning market, industry, and type. It also positions the tool against siblings by explaining that it supplies the exact symbol needed for cd_search_letters and cd_financial_years.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to get the exact `symbol` for cd_search_letters and cd_financial_years, or to answer what a symbol is. It names the relevant alternatives, so the agent does not need to infer routing.

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