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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing the per-call cost ('[호출당 30포인트]') and the exact field set returned, which is behavior the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and content is compact; the field list and cost note are useful rather than filler. The English and Korean halves are largely parallel translations, which adds length but is localization rather than true redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (name, about, industries, size, headquarters, followers, employees, updates), compensating adequately. Combined with annotations covering safety and the cost note, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool 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% and the single 'url' parameter is documented in the schema with a concrete example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes 'by URL' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('LinkedIn company page by URL') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The resource (company) reads distinctly from siblings linkedin_profile and linkedin_job, though the description never names those alternatives directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the required LinkedIn company URL, which naturally scopes when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to linkedin_profile/linkedin_job for other LinkedIn entities.

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