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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the first call only records a baseline and reports nothing, and without fresh=true the answer may come from a cache up to 90 days old, plus the paid-lookup cost of forcing freshness. What it does not address is the destructiveHint=true annotation — the description reads like a pure read, and although 'records a baseline' implies server-side state is written, it never says so plainly, leaving an agent to guess why the tool is flagged destructive.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: capability, acceptable identifier, alternative routing, and the two operational caveats. The most costly mistake (stale cache on a scheduled watch) is placed last for emphasis rather than buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the classes of change returned and explains the empty-result case, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise misread as failure. For a 2-parameter tool this covers everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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, and the description earns above that by quantifying the staleness the fresh flag guards against ('cached copy up to 90 days old, which is no use for noticing a move'), a concrete detail the schema lacks. It also restates the accepted identifier forms for `linkedin`, though that duplicates the schema example.

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 ('Check one person's LinkedIn profile and report what has changed since the last check') and enumerates the change types reported (headline, company, move, open to work). It also names the boundary against a sibling ('for what they have posted use search_linkedin_posts'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Explicitly scopes use to 'watching a named person over time' and redirects post-related questions to search_linkedin_posts. It also pre-empts two predictable misuse cases: the first check returning no changes (normal, baseline recorded) and omitting fresh=true on a scheduled watcher.

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