Get Company Employees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context that the /people/ page exposes a demographics aggregate unique to this tool. It also implies pagination differences vs search_people, though it does not disclose specific rate limits or pagination parameters. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with purpose first, followed by alternatives, then parameter-specific guidance. Every sentence adds value, though a bit dense; no fluff.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides all necessary operational context: what it returns (employees + demographics), how to get the correct company identifier, when to choose an alternative, and keyword behavior. Fully complete for an AI agent.

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 enriches the schema significantly by explaining that company_name must be the exact LinkedIn URL slug, provides an example, and warns that display names often differ. It also tells how to resolve ambiguity via search_companies. The keyword filter meaning is confirmed, adding practical nuance.

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 lists employees from the LinkedIn /people/ page, including unique demographics (location, school, function). It distinguishes itself from search_people by noting the demographics are unique to this tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: prefer search_people for filtered search by network degree or location, notes that path returns more pages, and instructs to call search_companies if uncertain about the exact slug. This gives clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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