Map LinkedIn Company Page Presence

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes well beyond by disclosing logged-out access, exact digit rendering, non-reachability of certain data, identity_mismatch handling for guessed slugs, and the cost/credit implications. None of this contradicts the annotations; it enriches them.

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?

Six sentences, all substantive: purpose, output list, a distinguishing fact (summable counts), access mode, exclusions, and an identity edge case. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or redundant restating of annotations.

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 and zero required parameters, the description carries full responsibility for usability. It covers what is returned, what is not, how mismatches are reported, auth requirements, and cost implications. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly without guessing.

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 each parameter already has detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some context around discovery vs. direct fetch and the Clay string conversion, but these are largely echoed in the schema. It does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair ('Resolve a company domain to its LinkedIn company page') and enumerates the exact outputs: follower count, industry, size band, HQ, founded year, specialties. It clearly differentiates from typical social-platform tools by noting counts are exact and summable, leaving no ambiguity about the function.

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 clearly states what the tool returns and, importantly, what it does NOT return (employee lists, growth, engagement) and that no login or session is needed. It also mentions the APIFY_TOKEN requirement and credit consumption. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, there are no siblings, and the conditions for choosing this approach (public logged-out data) are explicit enough.

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