Find companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results come back in the site's company ranking, and 'rating is out of 5 (absent when nobody rated it)' warns that the field may be missing. It does not discuss pagination limits or total result counts, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and default ordering, then routing, then a compact glossary of rank and rating. Nothing is repeated from the input schema and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by defining the two returned fields an agent is likely to misread (rank as overall position, rating out of 5 and sometimes absent). For a nine-parameter search tool it covers the essentials, though it says nothing about paging behavior or how many results to expect overall.

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 100%, so every one of the nine parameters is already documented, including the enum for size, defaults, and the jv_options id lookups. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies; its extra semantics concern rank/rating output rather than inputs.

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 ('Find companies on Jobvision') plus the default ordering ('best rated first, the site's company ranking'). It explicitly separates itself from jv_search ('Jobvision's job search cannot' look up a company by name), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: name lookup and browsing top employers 'by industry, city, size or score'. It also names the follow-up tools (jv_company for profile and open ads, jv_interviews for interview experiences), and the input schema points to jv_options for benefit/industry ids.

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