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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is that the tool is unavailable in this version, which is valuable but leaves open whether calls error out or return empty, and how that interacts with the fully specified schema.

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 what the tool does and what it returns. The unavailability caveat is placed last rather than first, slightly burying the most decision-relevant fact, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the core is covered, but saying a tool is unavailable without saying what to do instead leaves the agent without a next step in a family where linkedin_get_profile exists.

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 parameters are already documented, and the description's 'by company ID or vanity name' merely restates the identifier schema text. No additional semantics are added for in_workspace, which is appropriately left to the schema.

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 ('Get a LinkedIn company profile') and enumerates return fields (name, description, industry, size). It does not differentiate from the nearby sibling linkedin_get_profile, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Not available in this version' is an implicit negative-usage signal telling the agent not to call it, which is genuinely useful. However, it names no alternative (e.g., linkedin_get_profile or linkedin_search) for obtaining company data, leaving the agent to guess the fallback.

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