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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, returns are snippets rather than full messages, and whole-thread retrieval is delegated to another tool. It stops short of stating pagination limits beyond the schema's limit param.

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, zero waste: scope/ordering first, filters and examples second, return format and handoff third. The examples earn their space by making the query semantics concrete.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating what comes back (snippets) and how to get the full content (get_linkedin_conversation). All filters, defaults and ordering are accounted for between description and schema, so nothing an agent needs 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 all five parameters (limit, query, since, until, person) are already documented with defaults and formats. The description restates the filter axes (words, person, date) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (the text of the user's imported LinkedIn messages/DMs), plus ordering (newest first) and the three filter dimensions. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_linkedin_conversation by naming that sibling for whole-thread reads.

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 three concrete example queries that map directly onto the available filters, and explicitly states the alternative for reading a full thread ('read a whole thread with get_linkedin_conversation'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance an agent needs.

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