linkedin_search_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful context by explaining that the tool's output (companyId) is intended as input for other search tools. It does not contradict annotations, though it could elaborate on return format or multiple-match behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Search for companies') and immediately followed by a clear usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy 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?

For a search/resolve tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the primary purpose (name to ID resolution) and connects it to sibling tools. It doesn't describe the return structure, but given the annotations and schema coverage, the description provides enough context for an agent to effectively select and invoke the tool.

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 75% (query, limit, and companySize have descriptions, industryIds does not). The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it repeats that query is a 'company name or keyword' and mentions the ID resolution, but does not clarify industryIds. With coverage near the high threshold, the description is not required to heavily compensate, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'companies by name or keyword', and explicitly distinguishes its role by stating it resolves company names into numeric companyId for other tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like linkedin_search_jobs and linkedin_search_people.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to resolve a company name into the numeric companyId that linkedin_search_jobs and linkedin_search_people need for company filters.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how it fits into the broader workflow, effectively indicating that it should be used before those search tools when a company filter is needed.

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