follow_company

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. 'Follow a LinkedIn company page' states the action but doesn't reveal side effects (e.g., requires being logged in, whether it creates a follow or toggles, any navigation side-effects on the browser state, or what a successful follow looks like). For a mutating action with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise in a virtue sense, though brevity itself is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Though the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, it's a mutating operation with no annotations and no context about prerequisites like authentication. Given the presence of sibling tools like linkedin_auth_status and linkedin_login, the description should note that login is required. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but leaves important preconditions unstated.

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 schema description coverage at 0% but only one self-descriptive parameter ('company', minLength 1), the schema already makes the parameter reasonably clear. The description names the resource (company) but adds nothing about format requirements, e.g., whether it expects a company name, URL slug, or ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the parameter is largely self-explanatory despite zero coverage.

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+resource ('Follow ... company page') and clearly states the action. It doesn't actively distinguish from the very similar sibling follow_person, but the resource distinction (company vs person) is implicit and reasonably clear. The purpose is unambiguous for a straightforward action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The closely related sibling follow_person exists, and get_company/show page navigation are alternatives, but no guidelines distinguish when to choose follow_company. There's no mention of preconditions such as being logged in (though siblings linkedin_login and linkedin_auth_status suggest this is relevant) or when following is appropriate versus connecting.

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