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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the cost (7 credits, cached or not), that failures are refunded, the page size cap, and the result fields. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences, no filler — the find action and scope come first, then result fields, then cost. The middle sentence is dense but each clause (result fields, follow-up tools) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields and covers pagination and cost. It is complete for a search tool but omits any auth/permission context, which would matter for an agent on trial credits.

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 query, location, company_size, cursor and fresh are all documented in the schema. The description restates the searchable dimensions (name/keywords, place, size) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline.

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 (Find/search) and resource (companies), with scope qualifiers (by name or keywords, place and size) and page size. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling retrieval tools by naming 'linkedin/company gives the whole page' and 'linkedin/employees its people', so an agent can separate discovery from detail-fetch.

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?

Clear context for use (finding companies before drilling into details) and it routes the agent to the right follow-up tools for the full page or people. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., use get_linkedin_company if you already have the id), so it stops short of a 5.

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