linkfetch_get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose useful access context: a cookieless guest surface that works even for logged-off captures. That is real behavioral value, but permissions, rate limits, and failure modes (e.g., missing/invalid slug) are unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the field list is compact. The second sentence about the guest surface is relevant but slightly tangential to selection.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains the access path, covering the two biggest gaps. It falls short only on error/edge-case behavior and sibling routing.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'universalName slug' merely echoes what the schema already documents with examples ('stripe', 'vercel'), adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

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 names a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (LinkedIn company entity) and enumerates the returned fields, plus the input key (universalName slug). It's clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like linkfetch_search_companies or linkfetch_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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus linkfetch_search_companies (find by query) or linkfetch_get_company_employees. The slug-based lookup implies a direct-entity fetch, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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