run_linkedin_company_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Searches' with no details on output, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that likely performs network requests and returns data, so significant behavioral context is missing.

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 exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds meaning. The reference to the sibling tool is concise and avoids repeating filter names. No fluff or redundancy.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't mention required vs optional fields, result format, or any usage examples. The only context is the link to run_linkedin_people_search, which is helpful but insufficient for such a complex tool.

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 only 14%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'one or more given companies' (covering the required companies param) and vaguely references 'people-style filters' without listing any specific filter names or meanings. This does little to help an agent select parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches'), a clear resource ('LinkedIn employees of one or more given companies'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling run_linkedin_people_search by scoping to companies. The phrase 'using the same people-style filters' further clarifies it's a variant of people search, not a general search.

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 defines when to use this tool: when you need employees of specific companies. It references run_linkedin_people_search to indicate filter compatibility, implying an alternative for general people searches. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, so it misses a complete when/where-not.

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