Follow Company

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is technically covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't explain the effect of following (notifications, feed changes), idempotency, or whether the action is reversible, and it offers no help interpreting the unusual destructiveHint on a follow action.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. The brevity is appropriate structurally, though it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with siblings that invert the action, though, the definition is thin: no prerequisites (e.g. being logged in, page visibility) and no note on reversibility or side effects, leaving the agent to infer behavior from annotations alone.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that company_slug is a LinkedIn URL slug with an example. The description adds no further naming, format, or resolution details, 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?

The description states a specific verb (Follow) and resource (a LinkedIn company page), which is clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the very similar siblings follow_person and unfollow_company, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus follow_person, unfollow_company, or get_company_profile. The agent gets no criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions — only the bare action.

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