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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it saves contacts to a 'Google X-Ray' list with deduplication, returns contact IDs, paginates, and auto-filters duplicates. Annotations already indicate non-readonly, and the description confirms and adds context. It does not mention rate limits or Google API constraints, but overall is informative.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) with a clear structure: first sentence states purpose, second explains utility and next steps, third details behavior (pagination, deduplication). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns (contact_id), how it processes results (dedup, save), and follow-up actions. It also explains its advantage over LinkedIn search limits. This is complete for effective use.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that jobTitle is required and lists options. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool performs Google X-Ray search for public LinkedIn profiles, distinguishes from alternatives by highlighting it avoids LinkedIn search limits, and explains the output (contact IDs) and side effect (saves to contacts list).

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 provides explicit context for when to use ('when you don't want to consume LinkedIn search limits') and suggests follow-up actions (add to campaign or use CRM tools). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like search_linkedin_people or search_web, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use it.

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