Search Companies

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds beyond that: case-insensitive substring match, minimum 2-character query, award-based inclusion, Pro-only restriction, and the key distinction between SAM-only totals and FPDS activity. 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 dense but every sentence earns its place. Scope and sibling routing are front-loaded, followed by tight parameter bullets and return-value semantics, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers scope, eligibility, parameter semantics, Pro gating, the shared uei identifier, and the meaning of the returned totals, so an agent can mostly invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is explicit offset/pagination behavior, which keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining q, naics, agency, naics_small, and limit with formats, examples, and behavioral constraints. However, offset is never mentioned, and the assertion that q is 'REQUIRED' conflicts with the schema's zero required parameters and null default, leaving a minor reliability gap.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Search'), an exact scope ('companies that have WON at least one federal award'), and the two data sources (SAM Award Notices and FPDS prime contracts). It also immediately contrasts this with search_entities, making the tool's purpose unambiguous among many siblings.

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 explicitly routes the agent to search_entities for all registered SAM firms and to get_company_profile for direct UEI lookups. It also warns that q is required and that naics/agency/naics_small only narrow an existing name search, preventing invalid standalone usage.

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