discover_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that discovery is bounded and deterministic and that configuration is not persisted, which is real behavioral value. However, it omits auth requirements, rate-limit/network behavior, and what 'evidence' actually contains for a discovery operation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action leads, followed by return and non-persistence notes. Tight and skimmable, though the two trailing sentences could be folded together.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary (and the description's return note is a harmless bonus). For a 3-param, zero-required, fully-documented tool, the description covers action, scope, and non-persistence adequately. The main gap is absent guidance on when to choose this over sibling discovery/job tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (targets, career_url, company_name) with their constraints. The description only restates that inputs are company names or career URLs and adds no syntax, precedence, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Identify supported ATS portals from company names or career URLs.' This is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like job_search or auto_apply_job, but the description never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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 'bounded deterministic discovery' and the ability to accept company names or URLs implies the discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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