search_company

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description aligns with these by describing a search/discovery operation. The description adds context about domain-restricted search and authoritative source URLs, but it does not explicitly mention potential empty results or the exact return format. However, the read-only nature is clear and there is no contradiction.

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 concise, at two sentences, and front-loads the primary action and purpose. It avoids redundant or extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function and placement.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to know when to use the tool and what kind of output to expect (authoritative source URLs). Since there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning website, LinkedIn, and registry presence, but it could be more explicit about the exact return structure or potential edge cases.

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?

The nested schema describes some fields (date, sector, companyDomain) but lacks descriptions for others such as company, listed, and country. The 'company' field is obvious from context, but 'listed' and 'country' would benefit from explanations. The description of the tool does not add much beyond the schema for individual parameters, so the semantics are only partially clarified.

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 the tool's purpose: discovering a company's official website, LinkedIn, and registry presence via domain-restricted Exa search. It also distinguishes this tool by specifying that it should be used first to resolve a company name to authoritative source URLs before other company tools, making its role unique among the sibling tools.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this first to resolve a company name to authoritative source URLs before calling other company tools.' This provides clear guidance on the tool's position in a workflow and implies that it should be used before downstream data-gathering tools.

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