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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: discloses the 1-credit base cost, the 2-credit surcharge per interest flag, that enrichments are only charged on success, that deprecated params are ignored at no cost, and that cache-avoiding modes are slower. That is exactly the cost/latency/auth context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the resource and payload in one sentence, then separates cost, deprecation and caching into short paragraphs. Every sentence carries distinct information; 'and more' is the only filler.

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 12-parameter, zero-coverage schema with an output schema present, the description covers the highest-risk details (pricing, caching freshness, deprecated params). Only 'lang' and the per-flag return semantics are left unaddressed, which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain the non-obvious ones: all three use_cache modes, the deprecation of include_extra and skills, and the pricing of the seven boolean flags. It does not describe what each individual interest flag returns, nor the 'lang' parameter, leaving residual gaps.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a LinkedIn person's profile') and enumerates the returned fields (name, headline, role, company, location, experience, education), which clearly separates it from get_company_profile. It does not explicitly distinguish it from near-neighbours like get_person_activity or search_people, so it stops short of a 5.

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 actionable selection rules for the optional behaviour: 'Leave them off unless the user asked for what they return', and 'Use if-recent for a profile no older than 29 days, or never to force a live fetch'. It never names an alternative sibling tool or states when to prefer search_people instead, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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