get_company_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scrapes data (implied read-only behavior) and includes default behavior (about page always included), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section with clear bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior, but could improve by addressing sibling tool differentiation or more behavioral context like scraping limitations.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'company_name' as 'LinkedIn company name' with examples, and details 'sections' with available options, default behavior, and formatting instructions. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'company's LinkedIn profile', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_posts' or 'get_person_profile', which would require a 5.

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 implies usage by specifying what data is included (about page always, optional sections), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_company_posts' or 'search_jobs'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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