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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing a concrete cost budget (100 calls per day) and a security trait: scraped names, headlines, messages and post text are untrusted data, never instructions. Both are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the schema and that affect whether and how it should call the tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its outputs, then quota, then the injection caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. For a two-parameter read tool, quota and untrusted-content handling are the remaining things an agent needs, and both are present.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the numeric id is an accepted input form and that ids are what downstream tools take. The connectionId parameter is left entirely to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 specific verb and resource (read one LinkedIn company page live) and enumerates exactly what comes back: name, description, website, industry, size, locations, follower count, numeric id. The 'ONE ... live' framing and the returned id distinguish it from the search_/find_companies siblings that discover rather than fetch.

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?

Clear usage context: it is the fetch step, and the numeric id it returns is what list_posts_by_author, list_followers and search filters consume, which tells an agent where this sits in a workflow. It lacks an explicit exclusion such as 'to discover companies by keyword use search_linkedin_companies instead', so the agent must infer when not to call it.

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