search_company

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

Builds on the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint by explaining that the search is domain-restricted and that it returns authoritative source URLs for website, LinkedIn, and registry presence. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first names the output and method, the second gives the routing intent. No filler or repetition of schema data.

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 read-only discovery tool, the description names the output and its upstream position. However, it omits semantics for the optional context fields and any no-result behavior, so while adequate, it is not fully complete for an agent working with the richer nested context parameter.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the context object and its optional fields (date, listed, sector, country, companyDomain), but it only implies the company name. Aside from company, an agent cannot tell from the description why or how to set the other fields, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Discover') plus concrete resources (official website, LinkedIn, registry presence) and the method (domain-restricted Exa search). The second sentence clarifies it is a pre-resolution step for other company tools, so it is clearly distinct from downstream tools like company_profile or financial_statements.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use this first to resolve a company name to authoritative URLs before other company tools, which is clear situational guidance. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., when the domain is already known) or naming specific alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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