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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results include the surrounding conversation and that contacts are searched, but says nothing about limit/pagination behavior or result ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; what is searched is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately.

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's return-value sentence carries weight and does so adequately, and the searchable-field enumeration fills part of the schema gap. However, for a 3-parameter search tool it should explain the limit and since semantics and note the sync prerequisite, which it does not.

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 only 33% – only 'since' is documented ('ISO date'), while query and limit have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the query is full-text over both message text and contact attributes, but it leaves the limit default/max and the since date filtering behavior unstated.

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 ('Full-text search across synced LinkedIn messages and contacts') and even enumerates searchable contact fields, so the agent knows exactly what is queried. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces (recent_messages, list_conversations), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 'synced' qualifier hints at a prerequisite (data must be synced via request_sync/sync_status) and 'full-text' implies keyword use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs recent_messages or read_conversation, and no exclusion guidance.

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