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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Pure DB read — no LinkedIn pull, no credits charged' discloses both the side-effect profile and the cost model, which an agent cannot get from the schema. It omits return shape and whether results are truncated by limit, leaving a modest 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the relation semantics, then the cost/side-effect note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and cost. The remaining gap is what an 'engager' record contains and whether limit truncates silently, which matters for a tool returning up to 100 records.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical intent of 'alumni' for school-type companies. It says nothing extra about company_id vs company_url precedence, which is the one ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 and resource ('return engagers ... who have a position at that company') and scopes it to 'across your collected posts', which implicitly separates it from per-post siblings like get_post_engagers_by_company. It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 real guidance on choosing the relation value, including the non-obvious tip that 'alumni' is most useful for page_type='SCHOOL' companies. It does not say when to prefer this tool over get_company_engagement_overlap or get_engager_position_history, so tool-level routing is left to inference.

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