LinkedIn company profile

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that data is 'structured' and lists fields; it does not explain how the data is obtained, whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid URLs, or any rate limits or limitations.

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 one short sentence that gets straight to the point, listing the key data fields. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 tool with a single URL parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential data fields but omits any behavioral context such as whether it performs a live scrape, any usage restrictions, or how the response is structured. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 fully documents the URL parameter (100% coverage), achieving the baseline score of 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, but the schema already suffices for a simple URL.

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 clearly identifies the resource (LinkedIn company profile) and the main fields returned (industry, size, description, specialties). It distinguishes itself from siblings like person_profile or job_listings by specifying 'company profile'. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves'), relying on the noun phrase.

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 does not mention when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as web_data_linkedin_person_profile or web_data_glassdoor_company. It provides no exclusions or context for selection beyond the implicit 'company profile' in the name.

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