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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds genuinely new operational context: 'Requires a connected account' and 'One LinkedIn call per lookup,' which discloses cost/rate behavior. It stops short of describing failure modes (no match, invalid facet) or pagination behavior for count.

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 the core behavior and the routing rule, then the return shape and downstream usage. The 'dynamic ids' rationale is stated twice, which is mild redundancy, and the parenthetical 'geo, company, school, title…' repeats the enum already covered earlier.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values in detail, yet it still names the returned fields and where the chosen id should be used next. Auth requirement and per-call cost are both disclosed, so nothing needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it tells the agent that 'geo' yields REGION ids and which downstream URL parameter each facet maps to. It undersells the 'group' enum value entirely and mentions 'industry' only to deflect it elsewhere, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Live Sales Navigator autocomplete') and resource (facet ids that are dynamic), and explicitly distinguishes itself from salesnav_resolve_industry, a close sibling. An agent can pick this tool without opening another 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 explicit routing: type='geo' for region ids, company/school/title for entity facets, and redirects industries to salesnav_resolve_industry. It also names the downstream consumer (salesnav_build_search_url) and which parameter each facet feeds.

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