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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it may return multiple candidates, it should be disambiguated before writes, and it documents the stable ID shape ('ACo...'). Missing only return-shape/pagination detail.

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-loads purpose and usage before the ID mechanics, and every section (purpose, when-to-use, ID format, obtain-methods, never-pass rules) earns its place. The 'Obtain with' block is dense but functional rather than redundant.

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 strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential agent needs: trigger conditions, disambiguation behavior, ID format, how to obtain IDs, and explicit invalid inputs. Gaps are limited to the un-annotated numeric/optional parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining what keywords can contain (name, role, employer, location). However, limit, save_search, save_custom_filter, and the filters object receive no added meaning, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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 (resolve) and resource (a human description to LinkedIn people and their stable system IDs), with concrete input examples (name, role, employer, location keywords). It is clearly distinguishable from linkedin_search_people and other lookup siblings because its job is pre-action ID resolution.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering conditions ('message Sarah at Acme', 'connect with the CTO of X') versus the alternative of already having an ID. It also gives the disambiguation rule ('if multiple plausible results remain, show/disambiguate before any write'), which is a clear when-to-use policy.

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