search_companies

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a real failure mode: Zefix rejects searches matching too many companies. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about result ordering, rate limits, or the fact that this is a non-mutating read with no side effects.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then capability, then matching semantics, then the failure-mode remedy. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, filtering capability, and the main failure mode well. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating what the results contain or that they can chain into get_company_details_uid for the full record.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema only hints at: prefix-by-default matching and '*' meaning match-anywhere, plus the practical workaround of combining filters. It does not restate the canton/legalFormUid formats, which the schema already covers.

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+resource ('Search for Swiss companies') and names the backing data source (Zefix API). It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'advanced_search', which an agent must choose between, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete operating guidance: names match by prefix, '*' matches anywhere, and if Zefix rejects an over-broad search the agent should add canton, legalFormUid, or narrow the name. That is genuinely actionable context, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus the sibling search tools.

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