Get a LinkedIn company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the '[READ - no LinkedIn state is changed]' prefix largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive fact is that only the public 'About' section is retrieved, which hints at limited result scope, but nothing about failure modes or rate limits is given.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee, then the resource and its payload. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, and the description still lists the expected fields. For a one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, with only usage routing left implicit.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, https://www.linkedin.com requirement, example). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (reads) plus resource (company's public LinkedIn 'About' page) and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like linkedin_get_profile or linkedin_get_job.

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 establishes context by labeling the tool READ-only, but it gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite, and no distinction from siblings that also fetch LinkedIn entities. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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