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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, but the description adds offline execution, no LinkedIn call, bundled taxonomy, ranked candidates, and disambiguation guidance. This is substantial context beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: core action, offline constraint, output summary, downstream usage, and call guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the key 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering side effects, the description supplies the remaining operational context: offline behavior, downstream integration, call cadence, and candidate disambiguation. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'any language' to query and indicates results are ranked candidates, but the schema already provides solid descriptions for both query and limit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve an industry name (any language) to its LinkedIn Industry Code(s)'. It names the bundled taxonomy, output fields, and the exact downstream user (salesnav_build_search_url's industry filter), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 when to call it ('Call once per industry term') and how to handle ambiguous results by picking via the hierarchy path. It also identifies the integration point with salesnav_build_search_url, but it does not name explicit alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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