Read company page

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: it uses LinkedIn's ?editPage=true admin modal, the modal closes on navigation away, and it explicitly confirms 'no state is modified'. This provides context about the tool's mechanism and side-effect-free nature, going beyond the annotations' basic safety profile.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides a compact explanation of the technical mechanism and safety. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It lists the major fields returned, explains the source (admin modal), and explicitly states that no state is modified. This is fully adequate for an agent to decide to use the tool and understand its behavior.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter (company_id) with examples and accepted formats, so the description adds no extra semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description correctly relies on the schema and does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 action ('Read every structured field') and the resource ('company page'), using a specific verb and a defined scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like company_edit_about or company_list_posts by emphasizing that it reads all structured fields at once, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is the only place that exposes name, tagline, description, website, industry, size, type, phone, and founded year all at once. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'only place' phrasing gives a strong usage signal and distinguishes it from write or listing tools.

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