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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing the billing model: 1 base credit, +10 for company_insights, +5 for get_funding_rounds, and the non-obvious detail that enrichment charges only apply on success. That is exactly the cost/risk context an agent needs before opting into paid flags.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then cost, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information; only the line-broken formatting slightly weakens the front-loading.

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 an output schema and annotations already covering safety and return shape, the description only needed to add cost and routing semantics, which it does. The remaining gap is cache and language behavior, which matters for idempotency expectations but is a second-order concern here.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does well for the two expensive flags (naming their credit prices), but leaves `lang` and especially the `use_cache` enum ('if-present'/'if-recent'/'never') completely unexplained, which is the parameter most likely to be misused.

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 ('Fetch a LinkedIn company's profile') and enumerates the returned fields (name, industry, headcount, headquarters, specialties, recent updates). It also names the sibling it is not (get_company_funding_rounds), so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 conditional guidance: 'Turn them on only when asked for' for the expensive flags, plus a concrete routing rule — if funding history alone is needed, use get_company_funding_rounds because it is cheaper. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative all in one place.

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