Search for Companies

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which could mislead, but the description proactively clarifies the read-like nature of the POST request ('Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms') and adds critical cost/guardrail context ('Potentially consumes paid API credits; requires confirm=true'). This goes beyond annotations. The inconsistency between readOnlyHint=false and the description's read-like claim is not a direct contradiction because the annotation is a conservative default for POST, but the description resolves the ambiguity.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste. The purpose and output are front-loaded, followed by the cost/confirmation caveat and the clarification about POST behavior.

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 filtered search tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (field list), how the result is used, cost implications, and safety posture. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the 'confirm' requirement and implies the 'query' is the company name, but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Searches for companies by name in the Meta Ad Library') and identifies the output ('returns their page IDs for use with other ad library endpoints'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like facebook_ad_library_search (which likely searches ads, not companies) and facebook_ad_library_company_ads.

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 implies a discovery-to-retrieval workflow ('page IDs for use with other ad library endpoints'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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