Search Companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the platform 'LinkedIn' and does not disclose any additional traits such as pagination, result limits, or filtering behavior. Since it adds no extra value over annotations, the score is low.

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 a single, direct sentence that states the tool's action without any fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It provides the essential purpose and platform, while schema and annotations cover parameters, safety, and return format. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema fully documents the sole 'keywords' parameter with a clear description and example. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool searches for companies on LinkedIn, which directly matches the tool name and title. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling search tools (e.g., search_people, search_jobs) beyond the resource type, which is already evident from the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_people or search_jobs. It simply restates the function without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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