company_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('researches') but does not explicitly state that it only reads public data, does not modify anything, or any associated rate limits. The return format is mentioned ('natural language with sources' or 'JSON') but details are likely covered by the output schema. Overall, adequate but not explicit.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose/sources, followed by a clean Args list. Every part adds value. No irrelevant details or 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, sources, and parameters. Missing elements are usage guidelines (when/why to use) and a note that output schema details are available. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description's 'Args:' section fully explains each parameter: company_name, output_format (with allowed values 'answer' or 'structured'), and max_results (range 1-50). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by adding clear meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 purpose: 'Find known clients, customers, and case studies for a company.' It specifies the verb (research) and the resources (clients/case studies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_products or company_partnerships, which focus on different aspects.

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 does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool. There is no comparison with alternatives or mention of prerequisites. While the purpose is clear, the lack of usage guidance means the agent may not know whether to choose this over similar tools like company_products or research_company.

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