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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavior: the query-omitted fallback to 'Your Pages', compatibility with personal and Company Page compose, and the auth requirement of a connected Page CM token. These details give an agent meaningful operational expectations beyond the structured annotations.

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 packed sentences with no fluff: the first sentence states the core action and scope, the second gives auth/context, and the third gives concrete integration guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, optional-query behavior, auth prerequiste, and how to consume the result in create_post. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit accountId semantics and return-shape details, but the description is strong enough that an agent can likely call it correctly after connecting a LinkedIn account.

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?

The input schema has two parameters, query and accountId, but the description only indirectly indicates that query is optional ('when query is omitted') and never explains accountId's meaning or role. The mention of 'type, urn, displaText' refers to create_post fields, not to this tool's parameters. With low parameter coverage in the description, the agent is left to infer the meaning of the required accountId from the tool name and sibling context.

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 specific action ('Resolve LinkedIn companies for @mentions') and a specific mechanism ('vanity Organization Lookup'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_search_people_mentions and linkedin_search_geo_locations. It also adds the useful nuance that omitting the query resolves 'Your Pages'. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: when composing a personal or Company Page post/comment and needing LinkedIn company @mentions. It also provides a prerequiste ('needs any connected Page CM token') and shows how to feed the result into create_post via captionMentions/firstCommentMentions. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a fully explicit routing guideline.

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