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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds 'from the user's own account' as an account-context trait capital. However, it does not disclose search semantics, result shape, pagination, or limits, which would be useful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by concrete use cases. No filler or redundant restatement of the title. The structure effectively supports quick agent comprehension.

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?

For a search tool with six optional parameters.Type:Boolean, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits return value shape, parameter semantics, and edge behaviors, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation details. The clear use-case framing helps, but it doesn't make the tool self-sufficient.

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 only 17%, with only account_id described. The description does not compensate by explaining how keywords, industry, location, has_job_postings, or is_employing_relations affect the search. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Search LinkedIn companies'), the resource (companies), and the source ('from the user's own account'). It also clearly frames the purpose (finding a company ID/profile before other scoped operations), which distinguishes it from related search tools like linkedin_search_people or linkedin_search_jobs.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to find a company ID/profile before employee lookups, network checks, or company-scoped people searches. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the intended pipeline is stated well enough for an agent to route correctly.

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