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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the data provenance (public schema.org markup, no authentication), the cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and the failure policy (failed calls are not charged). Those billing and access details are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a paid endpoint and are unavailable in structured fields.

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 tight sentences: what you get, what you don't get, what it costs. Scope is front-loaded and the pricing caveat is placed where it can be read before the call, with zero filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, exclusions, data provenance, auth requirement and cost. Nothing an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that a slug or full company URL is accepted, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. Nothing is wrong, but it does not supplement the schema with format examples or slug-normalization behavior.

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?

Names a specific resource (public LinkedIn company page facts) and enumerates the exact fields returned: name, description, HQ address, employee count band, website links, logo. It also explicitly excludes posts, followers and people, which separates it from any LinkedIn-adjacent sibling at a glance.

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?

States the source and access condition ('schema.org data LinkedIn publishes on the public company page (no login)') and draws a clear negative boundary ('Posts, followers and people are not included'), which tells an agent when not to use it. It stops short of naming a direct alternative tool for those excluded needs.

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