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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds workflow context but no additional behavioral details such as response shape, error behavior, or auth expectations. This is acceptable given strong annotations, but the description itself contributes only modest extra context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and identifier type, the second provides the workflow trigger. Every word earns its place, and the core information is front-loaded.

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 a simple 2-parameter read tool with heavy schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what to call, with which ID type, and after which preceding tool. No output schema exists, and the description could briefly mention return fields, but 'company profile' plus the workflow context is sufficient for confident 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%, and the schema thoroughly documents both parameters, including account_id disambiguation and the strict company_id format rules. The description itself mostly echoes 'numeric/provider company ID' and does not add parameter meaning 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('LinkedIn company profile'), and the exact identifier type ('numeric/provider company ID'). It distinguishes itself from search/resolve siblings by framing the call as the follow-up that returns full company data.

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?

Description explicitly says to use it after linkedin_search_companies when full company data is needed, giving a clear workflow context and selection condition. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternative tools beyond the search step, 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.