get_organization_followers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires specific permissions ('admin permissions for the organization'), has access requirements ('Community Management API access'), and provides accurate data ('accurate follower counts'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but covers the essential operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, API context, parameter explanation, return information, and access requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter read operation), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides good context. It covers purpose, parameter details, access requirements, and return information. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than output structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains that 'organization_id' is a 'LinkedIn organization URN ID' with format details ('numeric, e.g., '12345678''), which the schema alone doesn't provide. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get'), resource ('follower count for an organization'), and method ('using the Community Management API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on organization follower metrics rather than content analysis, profile operations, or posting functions.

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 about when to use this tool: for organizations where the user has admin access and Community Management API access. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar data retrieval.

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