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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully explains why it isn't a pure read: it returns a server-owned session_id and up to 10 previews. It discloses the import handoff workflow, though it could say more about rate limits or freshness of LinkedIn results.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no waste: purpose first, then selection guidance, then the return-value plus next-step pairing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return shape (session_id plus up to 10 previews) and the downstream import step. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents query, role, and limit. The description only loosely echoes the searchable facets (words, roles, companies, market terms) without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Search) plus resource (LinkedIn people leads) and scopes it to the request user's connected account. It explicitly contrasts with searching existing saved leads, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like find_leads and list_list_contacts.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (user describes leads by words, roles, companies, or market terms) and a when-not ('rather than asking to search existing saved leads'). It also names the follow-up tool import_search_leads_to_list and the condition that triggers it.

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