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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does disclose key behavior: a hard page cap of 10 results, cursor-based pagination, AND-combination of filters, and a concrete cost model ('1 credit per non-empty page' — notably free for empty pages). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether filters are case-insensitive, which keeps it off a 5.

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-loaded with purpose, output shape, and next step, then the filter enumeration — every listed filter carries distinct information, so the density is earned. The single long run-on filter sentence is harder to scan than a bulleted list would be, but nothing is wasted.

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 nested-object search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: result cardinality, result type, pagination token source, cost, and how filters compose. Minor gaps remain around result fields beyond the slug and filter value validation, but nothing critical to a successful call is missing.

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?

The schema documents only two params and reduces filters to 'At least one criterion', so the description supplies essentially all filter semantics — enumerating the twelve filter keys with their expected value shapes (arrays, {"any": [...]}, {"min","max"} pairs, slug-or-id for company). One flaw: it instructs 'Pass next_cursor' while the actual parameter is named 'cursor', a mismatch that could momentarily mislead an agent.

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 ('Find people by criteria') and immediately defines the output shape ('up to 10 LinkedIn slugs per page'), which separates it from the enrichment siblings. It also names enrich_person as the downstream step, so an agent can tell discovery from enrichment without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for use — search a population, then enrich each slug with enrich_person — and explains pagination via next_cursor. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., when you already have a slug and want data) and does not mention get_lookup for filter value discovery, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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