get_company_profile

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

Description mentions that setting get_employees to true is 'slower', disclosing a behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or data freshness, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise and well-structured with a brief summary followed by Args/Returns docstring. It uses only necessary text, though the docstring format adds slight verbosity.

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 (2 params, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, return type, and a performance hint. Missing guidance on error cases or prerequisites, but adequate for the complexity.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful semantics: company_name is clarified as a LinkedIn company name with examples, and get_employees is explained as controlling employee scraping with a performance note.

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 'Get a specific company's LinkedIn profile' with examples like 'docker', 'anthropic', 'microsoft'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_person_profile and search_jobs by specifying company focus.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings, though the purpose is clear. It includes parameter details but lacks contextual triggers or alternative tool references.

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