linkedin_export_companies

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds that the tool exports results in specific formats, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose details like whether the output is a file download, how pagination or limit works, or any potential side effects beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant information or filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three parameters and good annotations, but the description lacks details on the return value or how the export is delivered. It also does not clarify when to use this vs. the similar linkedin_export_search_results tool. While the core purpose is clear, the description is not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke it without additional assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implicitly clarifies that 'query' is the search term and 'format' is one of JSON/CSV/Markdown, which matches the enum. However, it does not explain 'limit' or the exact semantics of each parameter, leaving some gaps. The description adds some value but does not fully document all parameters.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Search companies and export the results to JSON, CSV or Markdown.' It clearly states the action (search and export) and the resource (companies), and differentiates from sibling tools like linkedin_search_companies (which likely only searches) and linkedin_export_search_results (which may export other types).

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 implies the use case—when you need to search for companies and export the results—but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like linkedin_search_companies or linkedin_export_search_results. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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