Company Page

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which would normally read as a mutating call; the description resolves that ambiguity by explaining these are 'read-like POST requests' that do not publish to social platforms. It also discloses the credit cost and the confirm gate, adding real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing rate limits or whether repeated calls are billed separately.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the long field enumeration, then the critical operational constraints. The field list is lengthy but earns its place because there is no output schema; the only real cost is that the operational warnings (credits, confirm) sit after it instead of before.

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 full annotation coverage, the description compensates well by enumerating returned fields and flagging the credit/confirm requirements. It is missing only the expected format of the url input (full profile URL vs handle) and any note on caching or repeat-call billing.

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%, so url, account, and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the confirm/credit requirement but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('LinkedIn company page') and enumerates the returned fields in detail, which is unusually concrete. However, it never names the nearest siblings (linkedin_person_profile, linkedin_company_posts) to disambiguate scope, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Prerequisites are given clearly: it consumes paid credits and requires confirm=true. There is no guidance on when to choose this over linkedin_person_profile or linkedin_company_posts, so usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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