Search Companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (company names, tickers, CIK numbers) and the purpose of CIK, complementing the annotation coverage without 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It also gives context on using the CIK for downstream lookups, which helps the agent understand the tool's role 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 description covers 100% of parameters, with 'query' described as 'Company name or ticker symbol to search for'. The description essentially restates this, providing no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: searching for SEC-registered companies by name or ticker. It specifies the return values (company names, tickers, CIK numbers) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_filings which search filings rather than companies.

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 contextual guidance by stating to use the CIK for subsequent filing and financial data lookups, implying this tool is for company identification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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