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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that results may include private/out-of-network profiles shown as 'LinkedIn Member' and that full profiles cannot be retrieved for those records. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent behave correctly downstream.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first line states the core purpose, the second line covers an important edge case, and the remaining metadata (group, billing) is minimal. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It names the key result field (`memberId`), warns about non-retrievable profiles, and the schema covers pagination. It does not describe the full output shape, but that is not essential for selection and initial 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 100%, so the baseline applies: the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds no parameter-level detail, but it does reference the returned `memberId` in a behavioral caveat. This is acceptable given the schema already documents `companyId`, `count`, and `start`.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns people who list this company as their employer.' This clearly identifies the purpose as listing a company's employees and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_companyId_jobs or get_company_posts, even without naming them.

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 gives clear context for use and even provides a follow-up instruction: check whether the name is 'LinkedIn Member' before calling `/person-profile`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended use is clear enough given the company-specific siblings.

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