linkfetch_get_company_employees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the cache-first behavior, the specific failure mode (`extension_required` on miss) and the user action it demands, plus the exact cost model (3 credits + 1 per result scaling with page size). This is unusually rich operational context for a data-fetch 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose before moving to pagination, the capture fallback, and cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it also covers pagination, the error path, and cost. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to interpret a miss.

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%, so slug, limit, and offset are already fully documented in the schema (including the ~1000 LinkedIn cap). The description's 'Paginated' only restates limit/offset without adding syntax or semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) plus resource (people currently working at a company) and enumerates the returned fields (name, headline, location, profile URL). This clearly distinguishes it from linkfetch_search_people, which searches across people rather than enumerating a single company's 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?

Gives a clear operating context: you need a company slug, results are paginated, and cache misses require the user to capture the page via the extension. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with search_people or states when-not to use it, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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