Discover company actors

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: matching is exact rather than substring, results are deduplicated, source observations and a public-portal link are returned, and ambiguous SRNs must be resolved carefully. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the annotation bar is lower here.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return contents and a critical safety caution. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that results include deduplicated candidates, source observations, and a portal link. It also clarifies exact matching and the need to verify entity, country, and role before using an SRN. It remains incomplete around the limit parameter and role/country filtering, which are left to a mostly undescribed schema.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It reinforces the name parameter's exact-match semantics and mentions country/role confirmation, but it does not explain the role filter, the country format or filter behavior, or the limit parameter. It adds some semantic value but leaves clear parameter gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: resolving a company name into organizational candidates. It also explains the output types (deduplicated candidates, source observations, portal link), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this discovery tool from the sibling eudamed_actors retrieval tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use exact legal or abbreviated name searches and confirm legal entity, country, and role before using an SRN. The warning against inventing or silently picking an ambiguous SRN is useful workflow guidance. However, it does not name alternatives such as eudamed_actors or eudamed_investigate, nor state when not to use this tool.

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