linkfetch_search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cache-first behavior, live fallback execution on the user's account, safety-limit enforcement, and the specific error states. It omits rate-limit specifics and result/pagination behavior, but the disclosure of prerequisites and failure modes is substantial.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing/fallback behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, it covers the essential context: what it searches, the cache-vs-live execution path, and the failure modes. It stops short of describing the return payload shape and pagination semantics, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents q, limit, and offset. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Search LinkedIn companies by keyword') with a concrete analogy to the LinkedIn search bar. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_people, search_jobs, and get_company.

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?

Explains the cache-first flow and the conditions under which it runs live (LinkedIn connected, Cloud mode, within safety limits) versus returning linkedin_not_connected / extension_required. It gives clear operational context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it (e.g., vs. get_company).

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