search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, whether login is required before searching, what the result format is, or whether it modifies anything. Minimal disclosure beyond the core action.

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?

One clean sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and subject. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete—conciseness is fine but at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

A search tool with no output schema, no annotations, no parameter documentation, and zero context on result format, limits, or login requirements. Given the tool's complexity (external LinkedIn interaction requiring session state), the description is significantly incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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%, and the description adds no parameter detail. The limit parameter (max 50) isn't explained—no mention of default behavior, whether results are paginated, or how keywords should be formatted. Both parameters are entirely undocumented beyond the schema constraints.

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 'Search LinkedIn companies by keywords' with a clear verb and resource (searches companies). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool search_people except by the resource type (companies vs people), and could be confused with search_jobs. The purpose is clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs get_company or search_people. No mention of authentication prerequisites (linkedin_login seems to be a sibling prerequisite). No context on what results look like or how to proceed from a result to get_company or follow_company.

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