Search Companies

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not mention what the search returns (e.g., a list of matches, basic company info), pagination, rate limits, or how results relate to other tools. With annotations covering the safety and scope, the description contributes nothing beyond them.

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 sentence with no redundancy or filler, making it maximally concise. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema (so return format is covered), and annotations for read-only/open-world, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any indication of what types of results to expect or how they relate to other endpoints, which could leave the agent without enough context to decide if this is the right search 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 100% because the single parameter 'keywords' has an adequate description with examples. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 'Search for companies on LinkedIn' clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (companies) within a specific platform, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_people or search_jobs. However, it does not explicitly mention any filtering or scope beyond the resource type, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_company_profile for detailed company information or get_company_employees for employee lists. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer when this search is appropriate.

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