search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type (list with CIK and ticker) but lacks behavioral details like any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. It only gives minimal functional info.

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 relatively concise but includes an Args/Returns section that partially duplicates information already in the schema and expected output. It is front-loaded with the purpose but could be tighter without losing meaning.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, result ordering, or limitations. It is mostly adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query: Company name search query' and 'limit: Maximum results to return (default: 10)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 searches for companies by name in SEC records. The verb 'search', resource 'companies', and source 'SEC records' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cik_by_ticker or get_company_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no context about prerequisites or limitations. The usage is only implied through the description.

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