Get Company Profile

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicate a read-only, side-effect-free operation. The description does not contradict these hints and adds no additional behavioral detail such as rate limits or authentication requirements, which would have improved 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary wording, making it efficiently scannable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate. It conveys the core function, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it might slightly benefit from mentioning that it scrapes the profile (as implied in the schema), but this is not essential for basic usage.

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 provides high coverage (100%) with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including examples and defaults. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get a specific company's LinkedIn profile.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company's LinkedIn profile'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_posts and get_company_employees.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the user to infer usage from the name alone.

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