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

Adds useful context beyond the annotations: the tool is read-only in intent but requires the write scope, and output is post-ready markup. However, "Free: nothing is charged" directly conflicts with the schema's budgetUsd parameter (default $2, max $10), leaving the agent unsure whether a call can incur cost.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and a concrete example, with no filler. The "Free: nothing is charged" sentence is the weakest link because it duplicates and muddles the cost story rather than clarifying it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the example covers the token format. What is missing is how the same query parameter switches between company-name and topic modes, and how budgetUsd interacts with the stated free usage.

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 both query and budgetUsd are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics for either parameter and does not reconcile budgetUsd with its "free" claim.

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 concrete verb-plus-resource: resolves a verified LinkedIn mention token for a large company, or companies for a topic, with a literal example URN. No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so no disambiguation is required, but the dual company-or-topic mode is described loosely.

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?

Gives one real constraint ("Tag only a company it returns") and context that the token is paste-ready for a post, which implies when to use it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do when the lookup misses, and no stated alternative for other entity types.

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