find_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 discloses the return behavior ('Returns ranked candidates with a confidence score') and scope constraints (SEC filers only). It could add failure behavior for no-match queries, but the disclosed behavior is substantive and non-contradictory.

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?

Four sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by usage, scope, and return behavior. Each sentence earns its place, though it could trim minor redundancy in the scope sentence.

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?

Output schema exists and covers the return values, so the description need not restate them. It covers purpose, usage, scope, and return behavior. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter and missing no-match failure handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies the query accepts a name or ticker, but it never explicitly documents the query or the limit parameter at all. The limit's effect on candidate ranking is entirely undocumented.

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 ('Resolve a company name or stock ticker to its SEC CIK number') and clarifies its role as the prerequisite every other tool needs. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling filing/reading tools, which operate on a CIK after it is obtained.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use this when a name is ambiguous or you want to confirm which entity you are about to read') and clear exclusions (no private companies, foreign issuers only if they file a 20-F). The scope boundaries are unambiguous.

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