get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'opens' a page and returns visible text, implying a read operation. However, it doesn't disclose whether login is required, whether company pages that are gated/premium-locked will fail, whether the data is paginated/truncated, or what happens when the slug/URL is invalid. For a page-scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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?

Single concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's action and return value. No wasted words, well-front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple read tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably adequate. However, it lacks information about edge cases (invalid slug, rate limits, authentication requirements) and doesn't describe the format of the returned 'visible text'. Given the sibling set includes navigation/auth tools, the description stands on its own reasonably well but could be richer about failure modes and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'company' parameter documented as 'Company slug (e.g. 'google') or full company URL.' The description adds marginal value by confirming the input format ('by slug or URL'), consistent with the schema. Since schema is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add much beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Description states 'Open a LinkedIn company page by slug or URL and return visible text.' It has a specific verb (open), resource (LinkedIn company page), and input mechanism (slug or URL). However, the tool name 'get_company' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_companies' and 'follow_company', but the description doesn't explicitly call out that differentiation.

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 implies usage ('Open a company page... return visible text') but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It doesn't distinguish when to use get_company versus search_companies or follow_company, and gives no exclusions or context about when this tool should be preferred.

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