search_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search functionality, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and main parameters. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, any limitations or constraints, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The description provides only basic functionality without the context needed for effective agent use.

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 description lists the search criteria (keywords, industry, region, size) which maps to 4 of the 6 parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, providing only a high-level overview without additional semantic context.

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's purpose as searching for companies on LinkedIn using specific criteria (keywords, industry, region, size). It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('companies on LinkedIn'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sales_search_accounts' or 'search_people' which might have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sales_search_accounts' or 'search_people' that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual constraints for usage.

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