screener_linkedin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it returns rows with specific columns and that one of market/region is required, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. It provides minimal but sufficient context for a screening tool.

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 concise sentences: first states the purpose, second details the output and required input. No extraneous information.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully lists return columns. However, it does not mention optional parameters like limit and format (present in schema), nor clarify if market and region can be combined. Still, it covers the core behavior adequately.

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%, with all parameters described. The description adds value by listing the output columns (ticker, name, date, etc.) and reinforcing that market or region is required, which goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Screen LinkedIn data across tickers by market or region,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling screener tools (e.g., screener_analyst_ratings) and from the per-ticker linkedin_metrics_by_ticker.

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 indicates that 'Either market or region is required,' guiding on required inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like linkedin_metrics_by_ticker or other screeners.

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