search_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Search' without disclosing potential behaviors like returning multiple matches, requiring exact vs. fuzzy matching, authentication requirements, or whether the search is read-only. The description is underspecified for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and criteria, making it easy to scan. It earns full marks for conciseness.

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 that likely returns a list of companies or identifiers, the description omits crucial context: what the output looks like, how to interpret multiple results, and how this feeds into the get_* sibling tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for successful invocation and chaining.

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%, with each parameter (inn, name, ogrn) having a brief description. The tool description adds the context that these are search criteria, but it doesn't clarify whether they can be combined or if at least one is required. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('company') along with the search criteria (INN, OGRN, or name) and the data source (Kontur.Focus). It distinguishes from the get_* siblings by implying a search-and-locate function rather than a direct fetch, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 tells what it does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the get_* siblings. It doesn't mention that this is typically a first step to obtain an identifier for subsequent get_* calls, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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