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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the credit cost and refund policy for unmatched results. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with spending credits.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, then input guidance, then cost/refund behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, expected output, and cost/refund behavior. It does not detail the exact URL format or what happens on a non-confident match, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds extra value by emphasizing that company_or_domain sharply improves match success, which helps agents decide whether to populate an optional field.

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's purpose: finding the LinkedIn profile URL for a named person. It specifies a concrete verb, resource, and input requirement, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like lookup_linkedin_profile or reveal_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?

It gives clear operational guidance: provide first and last name, and use company_or_domain to improve match quality. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative lookup tools, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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