Search Quera companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a fixed page size of 15 and the fact that each result carries an open_jobs posting count. It stops short of describing other returned fields or what happens with an out-of-range page, but the added context is real.

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?

Two short sentences plus a routing clause, with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the sibling pointer last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so partially (page size, open_jobs count), which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the full result shape beyond those two facts, a minor omission for a simple filtered list.

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 all six parameters are already documented, and the description only paraphrases the filter dimensions ('name, city, size or tech stack'). It adds no syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the 3,000+ companies with a Quera Magnet profile'), gives the corpus size, and distinguishes itself from the sibling qr_company by being the search/list endpoint rather than the profile endpoint. An agent can tell immediately what it returns.

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?

'Use to find employers by name, city, size or tech stack' names the trigger conditions, and 'call qr_company for the profile and its jobs' explicitly routes the agent to the correct sibling when detail rather than search is wanted. Both the when and the when-instead are present.

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