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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description explains why by disclosing that the run 'saves' the lookups — a real side effect no annotation could spell out. It also discloses the data sources (external LinkedIn/GitHub lookups) matching openWorldHint=true. It stops short of noting cost or rate-limit behavior for the deep path.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the question being answered, then mechanism, then the return vocabulary, then the sibling relationship. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so listing the possible verdicts and noting that evidence is returned is exactly the right compensation. Only gap is the missing behavior of the deep option and how much evidence is returned, which is minor for a two-parameter check.

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 defines both username and deep. The description adds nothing about the deep parameter's cost tradeoff beyond what the schema's own 'costs more' note provides, 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?

States a concrete question and the resource it answers it from (LinkedIn role, GitHub company field, GitHub 'available for hire' flag), plus the exact verdict vocabulary returned. It is clearly distinct from enrich_person despite sharing its lookups, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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 opening question frames when to reach for it, and the closing sentence explicitly explains the relationship to enrich_person (same lookups, shared cost, so calling both is free). No explicit exclusion or prerequisite is given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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