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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: returned leads have null work_email, company_domains restricts to at most 100 domains/URLs, industry values follow LinkedIn's taxonomy, and the call consumes credits. This explains the non-read-only/destructive hint through credit cost, though it omits return shape, pagination, and rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, filter requirement, domain behavior, taxonomy example, null email, and cost are each one crisp sentence. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not describe what fields returned leads contain beyond null work_email, what 'audience' means, or how limit and pagination behave. The credit cost is noted, but other side effects and operational details are 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?

With only 13% schema coverage, the description needed to explain all parameters, but it ignores the required 'audience' property entirely and only names company_headcount without explaining its range semantics. It adds useful detail for company_domains and industries, but the 'At least one...' sentence conflicts with a schema that requires audience, creating ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search 200M+ B2B contacts by structured filters', which immediately conveys the tool's purpose and separates it from sibling tools like find_companies or enrich. It also enumerates the filter dimensions, making the scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives a hard usage condition ('At least one of titles, industries, locations, or company_domains is required') and warns that using the tool costs credits, which helps agents decide when to call it. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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