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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive safety, but the description adds real non-annotation context: pagination (10 results per page), the billing rate ($0.006 per request), and the exact numeric type of company_id. It does not mention max page depth (only implied by the schema's 1-100) or failure/empty behavior, so 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result list, then the cross-tool id contract, pagination and pricing. Slightly dense with an embedded parenthetical list of sibling parameter names, but every clause carries actionable information.

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 two-param search with no output schema, the description is complete: it describes the return fields, the id semantics that connect it to dependent query tools, page sizing, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both query (max 500 chars) and page (1-100, default 1) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the 10-per-page result size and adds no parameter-specific detail beyond it — correct baseline 3.

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 ('Search LinkedIn companies by keyword') and fully enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling linkedin_company_details by being a keyword search rather than a details lookup, and cross-references the downstream tools that consume company_id.

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?

Clearly establishes the search context and, more importantly, explains how the output feeds search_linkedin (author_company, from_company, mentions_company) and search_linkedin_jobs (company_ids) — an agent can infer this is a discovery/lookup entry point. No explicit when-not-to-use or statement that linkedin_company_details is the alternative for a single known company, so not a full 5.

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