linkedin_get_company_employees

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

Annotations already provide strong safety signals (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint). The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or data scope beyond the 'optionally filtered by job title' note. It is consistent with annotations but does not deepen transparency.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function, the second provides practical use cases. No fluff or repetitive information. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, optional filtering, and common use cases. It does not explain return fields or pagination, but given the simple nature and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-related addition is 'optionally filtered by job title', which is redundant with the schema's 'Filter by job title'. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'List people who work at a company' and adds 'optionally filtered by job title', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_people or get_company. It also provides concrete use cases (warm introductions, hiring managers, peers), reinforcing its specific purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool ('finding warm introductions, hiring managers, or peers in a target team') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention when not to use it. It gives context but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative naming.

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