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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context: the tool is 'Live', 'Requires a connected account', and returns '[{id, displayValue, headline}]'. It does not discuss rate limits or latency, but those are not essential here.

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 three dense sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most important usage caveat (geo resolves to REGION id), the return shape, and the downstream tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

It covers purpose, type-specific guidance, output format, downstream integration, and account requirement. The main gap is that it highlights 'company' / 'school' / 'title' but not 'group' or 'industry', even though the schema allows them; still, the rich schema, output schema, and annotations keep the context complete enough for correct invocation.

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 real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of type values, especially the geo-to-REGION mapping and the fact that these ids are not enumerable. It does not add meaning for count or account_id, but their schema descriptions already suffice.

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 and resource: 'Live Sales Navigator autocomplete for facets whose ids are dynamic.' It also clarifies the unique purpose of geo type by explaining that it resolves a location to its REGION id, which distinguishes it from the consuming tool salesnav_build_search_url.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions: use type='geo' for locations, and type='company' / 'school' / 'title' for entity facets. It also tells the agent where the output goes next ('Feed the chosen id into salesnav_build_search_url'), effectively explaining its role among sibling tools.

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