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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the tool reports, including remaining quota and cooldown, and notes that profile_id defaults to the active profile. It does not over-explain behavior but complements the annotations well.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the optional parameter detail and the usage timing. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers what the tool returns (quota, product, cooldown), the default behavior, and when to call it. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most contexts.

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%, and the single optional profile_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'defaults to the active profile' detail, but this mostly repeats the schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource: action limits and protected LinkedIn-search usage for a profile. It enumerates what is checked (hourly/daily/monthly remaining quota, account product, cooldown), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_linkedin_status or get_contact_profile.

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 timing guidance: 'Call before outbound or provider searches.' This is clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not state exclusions or name an alternative for cases where a different status or quota check would be appropriate.

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