nv_search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains that the action is queued, returns a status object immediately, and requires polling via get_workflow_result. It also discloses the two pending reasons and appropriate actions, making the async behavior fully transparent.

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 detailed but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the async workflow, polling mechanism, and pending reasons. Every sentence contributes necessary operational context, with no filler or redundancy. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 async nature, lack of annotations, and absence of output schema, the description provides complete guidance: what the server returns, how to retrieve results, how to interpret pending reasons, and what actions to take or avoid. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and follow up 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the filter sub-object. The description text does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only refers generically to 'various filtering criteria'. Therefore, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Allows you to search for companies in Sales Navigator applying various filtering criteria.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other tools. The mention of the underlying 'nv.searchCompanies action' adds precision.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains the async workflow, instructs to call get_workflow_result, and warns not to retry while running to avoid duplicate work. It also details how to handle pending reasons like 'queued' and 'outsideWorkingHours'. However, it does not explicitly compare against the sibling 'search_companies' tool for synchronous alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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