search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses async behavior, immediate return of pending status, the need to poll via get_workflow_result, and even distinguishes pendingReason values ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours') with appropriate agent guidance. This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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 relatively long but every sentence addresses an essential aspect of the async behavior or status handling. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then expands systematically into workflow details. No wasted words, but a slightly shorter version might be possible.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description fully explains the response shape, workflow lifecycle, and follow-up action (get_workflow_result). It also covers edge cases like outside working hours and budget elapse, making the tool's usage context complete for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a general mention of 'various filtering criteria' without enriching parameter semantics. The schema's own descriptions for term, limit, and filter fields are sufficiently detailed, so no additional value is provided.

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 it 'Allows you to search for companies applying various filtering criteria,' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_people or search_jobs, but the resource is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides detailed workflow guidance: explains that the tool returns immediately, instructs to call get_workflow_result with the returned IDs, and explicitly warns 'Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running.' It does not mention alternatives (e.g., search_people), but the workflow-specific usage is clear and actionable.

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