search_companies

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it excludes warrants, preserves multiple candidate matches, requires confirmation before fetching statistics, and discloses that calls currently return AUTH_REQUIRED without retrieving data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded with the core search purpose, followed by important exclusions and disabled-state warning. Minor redundancy exists between 'Mode: disabled' and 'Research is disabled,' but overall every sentence adds useful information.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call or avoid the tool correctly. It covers what is searched, what is excluded, the candidate behavior, the need for confirmation, and the current AUTH_REQUIRED failure mode.

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 0%, so the description must explain the query parameter. It does so by stating the query can be a 'symbol or company name' and clarifies that multiple candidates may be preserved. It does not give examples or case-format details, but for a single parameter this is adequate compensation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search IDX equities by symbol or company name.' It further distinguishes the tool by noting it 'Excludes warrants' and 'preserves multiple candidates,' and its role is clearly positioned as a lookup step before fetching statistics. This separates it from sibling tools like list_metrics and get_key_statistics.

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 phrase 'Confirm the company before fetching statistics' explicitly places this tool before downstream statistics tools, giving an agent a clear workflow cue. It also warns that 'Research is disabled; calls return AUTH_REQUIRED without retrieving data,' which tells the agent when the tool will not be usable. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the workflow context is sufficient.

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