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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: LinkedIn mentions require the numeric ID, the /company/google/ slug is insufficient, and which input forms are invalid. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or result shape, but the ID-vs-slug constraint is real added value beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the remainder repeats the same numeric-ID-vs-slug point three times and includes a schema-like fragment ('LinkedIn company ID: Provider numeric/company ID') that reads like leftover template text rather than guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe what comes back; it only gestures at 'company results and exact company IDs' without structure or fields. Annotations cover the safety profile and the ID constraint is stated, so the core need is met, but the return shape and the bare 'filters' object remain unexplained.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load, but it never explains 'filters', 'save_search' or 'save_custom_filter'. Worse, the 'Never pass: ... company name' instruction directly muddles the semantics of the required 'keywords' parameter, which the first sentence implies is a human company name.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a human company name to LinkedIn company results and exact company IDs.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming linkedin_search_companies and linkedin_get_company as the routes to the ID, so an agent can place this tool in the LinkedIn lookup flow.

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?

'Use before employee searches, company profile reads or company mentions' gives a clear triggering context, and the 'Obtain with:' line names the alternative tools. However, pointing to linkedin_search_companies for the ID is slightly confusing for a tool whose whole job is resolving an ID, and no explicit when-not-to-use case is given.

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