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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is free to add what they cannot: the privacy model (teammates' private notes never included, team notes gated on team plan and settings, each with author/visibility/mentions) and the conditional `team` block describing whether a teammate is already in touch. That is exactly the kind of authorization- and data-inclusion context an agent needs before presenting these results to a user.

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?

It is a single sprawling sentence with deeply nested parentheses, and the most actionable content — how to identify the contact — is buried at the very end. Every clause carries information, but the dense run-on structure makes it harder to scan than a three-sentence front-loaded version would be.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the full burden of describing the return shape and does so in detail, including the conditional team-notes block. The remaining gap is behavioral on the input side: with four optional parameters and no precedence or empty-input rule, an agent can't be sure what a bare call returns.

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 only 25% (only crm_id documented), so the description must compensate, and it does by naming all four lookup keys and giving the crm_id format (hubspot:123) explicitly in prose. The gap is that it doesn't explain precedence when several keys are passed, or matching behavior for name lookups (partial? exact?) on a tool with no required params.

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?

The description makes clear this returns a full contact record sourced from the synced LinkedIn inbox, enumerating the fields it bundles (profile details, CRM links, tags, follow-ups, conversations, notes). It is framed as a noun-phrase data inventory rather than a verb+resource statement, but the identity of the resource and its scope are unmistakable and distinct from siblings like list_connections or link_contact.

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 closing sentence gives lookup keys (contact_id, name, profile_url, crm_id) which implies this is the per-person lookup tool, and it references link_contact as the tool that sets CRM links. However, it never states when to use this versus list_connections, search_messages, or who_watched, nor does it say what happens when multiple keys or no key is supplied despite zero required parameters.

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