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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it requires the user's own Sales Navigator-capable account, and it explains the dependency on linkedin_get_search_parameters for filter name resolution. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second provides the when-to-use guidance and the alternative tool pointer. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential use case, the filter-resolution prerequisite, and the account context. It does not mention result format or pagination, but that is not strictly required for a search tool with no output schema, and the core decision-making info is present.

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%, and the schema already explains account_id thoroughly (including the 'never guesses' behavior when multiple accounts exist). The tool description adds no new meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search LinkedIn Sales Navigator leads'), identifies the resource (Sales Navigator leads via the user's own Sales Navigator-capable account), and distinguishes it from generic search by the 'advanced prospecting intent' wording. It also references the sibling tool for filter resolution, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool ('advanced prospecting intent such as lead lists, seniority, years of experience, current/past company, geography, function and saved-search criteria') and directs the agent to linkedin_get_search_parameters for resolving filter names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for basic search), but the Sales Navigator qualifier and the mention of 'advanced' imply a clear use case.

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