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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, open-world read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: a name input returns a single company on a clear match, otherwise a candidate list to choose from—an output-shape behavior an agent needs and the annotations do not convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two parameter branches. No padding, and the caveat about slug guessing is placed exactly where the agent would otherwise err.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden and does partially address it via the name-match/candidate-list behavior. It does not describe what a profile object contains, but that is a minor omission for a lookup tool with fully documented parameters.

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 meaning the schema lacks: LinkedIn slugs often differ from the company name, so a name lookup should not be replaced by a guessed slug. That rationale directly shapes parameter choice.

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.' It is clearly distinguishable from the bulk sibling linkedin_bulk_get_companies and from linkedin_get_company_posts by scope, though it never names an alternative explicitly, which keeps it short of 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?

Gives real conditional guidance: use identifier when known, use name when only the name is known, and explicitly warns against guessing a slug. It stops short of when-not-to-use-this-tool guidance (e.g., vs. search or bulk retrieval).

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