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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: query is a vanity lookup, omitting it falls back to Your Pages, and a connected Page CM token is required for auth. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the lookup behavior, the compose/auth context, and the downstream integration hint. The sentence about passing type, urn, and displayText is slightly jargon-heavy but useful. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste space.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by revealing the relevant output fields (type, urn, displayText) and how to use them in create_post mentions. It also covers auth and query fallback. The main gap is the unexplained required accountId parameter and the undefined 'CM token' acronym, but the overall picture is actionable.

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 provides no description for either parameter, so the description must carry the semantic load. It explains query behavior well (vanity lookup, fallback when omitted) and indirectly hints at account requirements via 'any connected Page CM token,' but it never explains the required accountId parameter. This is a partial but meaningful compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('Resolve'), resource ('LinkedIn companies/organizations'), and use case ('for @mentions'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like linkedin_search_people_mentions and linkedin_search_geo_locations. The mention of 'vanity Organization Lookup' and the Query-omitted fallback to 'Your Pages' adds precise scope without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for composing posts with company mentions, on both personal and Company Page compose, and requiring any connected Page CM token. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the company-mention purpose and compose-scope guidance are enough to route an agent correctly.

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