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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that both slug and id are accepted, and that a /company/{slug} or /school/{slug} URL is accepted for the slug parameter. It doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a read-only getter with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the two lookup methods. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter. It doesn't waste words, though it could have added a brief note about which pagination parameters are actually supported.

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 simple read-only getter with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint=true, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that the schema includes six pagination/trim parameters all marked 'Ignored if this tool does not support it,' and the description doesn't clarify whether this tool supports them. An agent might pass limit/offset/maxResults and get unexpected behavior. Also, there's no output schema, so the return shape is unknown, but that's a common gap for this tool family.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds the key semantic detail that slug accepts a /company/{slug} or /school/{slug} URL, which goes beyond the schema's 'LinkedIn organization slug.' However, many parameters (trim, limit, offset, pageSize, maxResults, max_results) are boilerplate 'Ignored if this tool does not support it' descriptions, and the description doesn't clarify which of these actually apply to this tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get a LinkedIn organization by slug or id.' It identifies the two lookup keys, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_live_organization_batch_v2 (which fetches multiple organizations) and linkedin_live_organization_resolve_v2 (which resolves identifiers). However, it doesn't explicitly name those siblings or explain the difference, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you have a LinkedIn organization slug or numeric id and want the organization record. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like linkedin_live_organization_batch_v2 for multiple IDs or linkedin_live_organizations_search_v2 for searching. The context is clear enough for a simple get-by-id tool, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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