search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (search and return matching companies with specific fields) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description is accurate about the tool's function but lacks operational context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence explains the purpose and parameters, the second explains the return values. There's no wasted language and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 search tool with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about return format structure or error handling. The description covers the essential purpose and output but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions searching 'by name or ticker' which aligns with the query parameter description, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search for companies'), the resource ('companies'), and the purpose ('to find their CIK'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieving facts, filings, or metrics. The description explicitly mentions what information is returned (CIK, ticker, name).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching for companies by name or ticker to obtain CIK information. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings like get_company_facts or get_company_filings that the appropriate usage is implied.

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