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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no API key is required and hedges emails as 'likely' rather than verified, which signals output reliability. It says nothing about rate limits, quotas, cost, data freshness, or what happens with unmatched companies, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the auth constraint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause adds information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, and auth requirements at a high level. It omits practical details an agent would want, such as how company names are matched, whether there are caps on the number of companies, and how confident the email guesses are.

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%, including examples for companies and jobTitles and the default for maxLeadsPerCompany, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or interpretation guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (find B2B leads) and enumerates the payload it returns: LinkedIn profiles, job titles, and likely business emails. That is far more concrete than a generic 'find leads'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as find_linkedin_candidates, search_linkedin_employees, or find_website_contacts, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With several near-identical sibling tools (find_linkedin_candidates, find_website_contacts, verify_emails), the description leaves the agent to guess which tool fits the request.

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