search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying prefix-based search, optional city filter in Ukrainian, and that it returns rating and link. However, it omits potential behaviors like pagination, result limits, error scenarios, or authentication requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action, optional filter, and return value.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: purpose, input semantics, and return value (matches with rating and link). It could add detail on result limits or ordering, but for a simple search tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description restates the schema semantics ('by name prefix', 'optionally filter by city') without adding new meaning. It clarifies that the query is a prefix rather than an exact match, but this was already implied in the schema description.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('companies on xtrust.info'), and the method ('by name prefix') with an optional filter ('by city'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a search over multiple companies, contrasting with lookup_company's likely targeted retrieval.

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 provides basic context for what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (lookup_company, post_review). It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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