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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: position and company are connection-time snapshots that may be stale, and it describes the return shape including a truncated flag. This informs the agent about data freshness and pagination behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with summary and returns sections, front-loaded with purpose and exclusions. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the need to clarify scope and caveats.

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 search tool with four parameters, this description is complete: it states the data source, the typical use cases, what it is NOT, the exact column constraints, a staleness caveat, and the return format. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description adds only a reminder to use exact column names from the where_clause and notes that position/company are stale snapshots. These are helpful but not substantive additions beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search the user's established first-degree LinkedIn connections'. It is explicit about what the tool does and distinguishes it from message history and outreach prospects by naming the alternatives. Example queries further clarify the intended use.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use to find existing relationships by name, title, or company') and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('This is NOT message history (use search_linkedin_message_history) and NOT outreach prospects (use query_prospects)'). This leaves no ambiguity for an agent.

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