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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds that the search runs against the user's own account, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or rate limits.

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, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the workflow rationale immediately after. Nothing redundant.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose and workflow but leaves the filter surface unexplained and gives no sense of what results contain or how the account_id ambiguity is resolved in practice. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 13% (essentially account_id alone), so the description carries the burden of explaining industry, keywords, location, has_job_postings, is_employing_relations and the two oversized save_search/save_custom_filter params. It mentions none of them, leaving most filters undefined.

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 and resource (search LinkedIn companies) plus the account scope it runs under, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as linkedin_get_company or linkedin_resolve_company, which also produce a company identity.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: obtain a company ID/profile as a prerequisite for employee lookup, network checks, or a company-scoped people search. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an exclusion condition (e.g. when to use get_company/resolve_company instead).

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