run_linkedin_company_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, scraperMode, result ordering, or what happens when filters are omitted. It is not misleading, but it discloses almost no behavior beyond the high-level operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is undersized for a seven-parameter tool with zero schema documentation. Conciseness is not the problem; insufficient substance is.

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 seven undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex LinkedIn search domain, one sentence is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Critical details like pagination, filter formats, and scraperMode behavior are entirely absent.

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 0% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions only a query and vague 'optional filters', leaving searchQuery, maxItems, startPage, locations, companySize, industryIds, and scraperMode semantically unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches LinkedIn companies, with a query and optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from people-oriented siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like run_linkedin_people_search or run_linkedin_company_employee.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'optional filters' implies refinement but does not explain when or why to apply them.

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