Search for companies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape: a list of matching companies with company number, status, type, and registered address. However, it does not describe edge-case behavior such as partial matching, empty results, ordering, or pagination, which limits transparency for such a sparse tool.

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 compact, front-loads the core action and result, and adds a clear usage note in only two sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 list-search tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete: it states the target population, the result fields, and the primary use case. Since there is no output schema, the described return fields are helpful. It could be slightly stronger by noting behavior when multiple companies share similar names, but that is not a major gap.

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 the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that the search is by company name and that the company number is a key output. It does not introduce new parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('UK companies'), and the key output (company number, status, type, registered address). The phrase 'Use this first when you only have a company name and need its company number' distinguishes it from the get_* sibling tools that expect a company identifier.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: when only a company name is available and a company number is needed. It does not list explicit exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough to route decisions correctly.

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