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

Adds context beyond the annotations: it discloses the one-credit-per-unsearched-page cost model and explains the read/cache boundary that underlies idempotentHint=true. It does not describe result caps or what happens when a page repeats with different filters, so the disclosure is strong but not complete.

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 clauses: purpose and filters first, return shape second, cost model last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 11 optional parameters, an output schema and full schema coverage, the description only needs to cover return shape and cost, and it does both. The handoff to find_contact_details closes the main loop; minor gaps are pagination behavior across changed filters.

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 100%, so the schema already carries the enum vocabularies, ranges and per_page limits. The description only restates the filter families, adding no syntax or interaction guidance (e.g., how titles and keywords combine), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search for people to reach out to') and names the filter dimensions (title, department, seniority, location, company details). It also names the sibling it hands off contact lookup to, so an agent can distinguish it from find_contact_details and search_companies without opening a 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?

Clearly states the follow-up step: it returns a profile link but not contact details, which find_contact_details supplies. It gives no explicit exclusion for its closest sibling search_companies (people vs. companies), so the when-not guidance is only partially covered.

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