Search companies

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

The annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the result shape: national id, name, age/capital summary, CEO, and up to 5 licenses. It does not mention pagination behavior or result-cap behavior (page max 200, page_size max 60), which is the remaining gap.

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 short paragraphs in a clear order: what it does, what it returns, what to do next. No redundant restatement of parameters and no filler sentences.

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 an 18-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents and the downstream workflow, which is the critical missing piece. It stops short of noting pagination or how many total results to expect, leaving a modest gap for a large filter surface.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that filters combine freely, shows a multi-filter example, and clarifies that company_id is the national id (شناسه ملی) that feeds rs_company. The cross-tool pointer for license_id/company_type sources is documented in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Search Iranian companies by name or activity with filters") and immediately scopes the tool's role in a pipeline by naming the sibling rs_company as the follow-up for full profiles. An agent can distinguish it from rs_search, rs_company, and rs_person without opening a schema.

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 an explicit combinatorial example ("active software companies in Isfahan with capital over 10 billion Rial") and a clear next-step directive, plus the note that an empty query means filters-only. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement versus the generic rs_search sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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