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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it resolves human values into provider parameter IDs, and it explicitly states that Nilyo never guesses when multiple accounts exist, instructing the agent to list and ask. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's non-deterministic account-selection 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives the typical usage sequence, and the account_id guidance is placed in the schema where it belongs. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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 read-only resolution tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, the parameter relationships, and the multi-account edge case. It doesn't describe the exact shape of the returned IDs or how to handle multiple matches for a query, but the 'choose the returned id' phrasing implies a selection step. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the strong schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 75%, so the schema already documents type, query, and account_id. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between type and query ('call this with type + query') and by clarifying that query is optional for Sales Navigator/Recruiter lists. It also adds the crucial account_id disambiguation rule, which is not fully captured by the schema's 'Optional Nilyo connection ID' phrasing.

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 specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('human LinkedIn filter values... into provider parameter IDs'), and clearly distinguishes this from search tools by naming the downstream consumers (linkedin_search_people / Sales Navigator / Recruiter search). It also enumerates the filter value types, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 description explicitly says 'Typical sequence: call this with type + query, then pass the chosen returned id into linkedin_search_people / Sales Navigator / Recruiter search.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how it fits into a workflow. The account_id parameter description also provides clear guidance on when to omit vs. provide it, including a fallback instruction to list and ask.

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