linkedin_get_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned and the significance of companyId for downstream searches. It does not discuss caching or rate limits, but with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero fluff. Every piece of information earns its place: the field list and the companyId note are both valuable.

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 simple read-only tool with excellent annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It lists return contents, explains the practical use of companyId, and the schema handles parameter details. No output schema exists, but the description covers what you get.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no extra detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides; the mention of companyId is about output, not parameter semantics. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'company page', followed by a concrete list of fields it returns (description, industry, size, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like linkedin_get_company_jobs and linkedin_get_company_employees by focusing on the company page itself, not related entities.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to fetch company details and especially to obtain the companyId needed for filtering in job and people searches. It implies when to use it (before searching) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it misses the full 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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