search_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it uses domain-restricted Exa search and returns source URLs for website, LinkedIn, and registry, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Discover,' and every sentence adds value. The first sentence defines the tool's function, and the second gives usage guidance with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values; it partially does by indicating source URLs are produced. However, parameter semantics are under-specified (especially the nested context object), and the description does not elaborate on output format or edge cases, leaving gaps for a tool meant to be used first in a workflow.

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 schema has a single nested 'context' object with several properties, but schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter and the tool description does not explain parameters beyond mentioning 'company name.' With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by describing optional fields like date, listed, sector, country, and companyDomain, leaving parameter usage ambiguous.

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 discovers a company's official website, LinkedIn, and registry presence via domain-restricted Exa search, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first step to resolve a company name into authoritative source URLs before calling other company 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 says 'Use this first to resolve a company name to authoritative source URLs before calling other company tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., when the company domain is already known), but the directive to use it first is a clear contextual pointer.

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