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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations, including that nothing sent is stored and that named people come from public posts. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the added privacy/data-source disclosure is useful.

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 front-loaded with the tool title and use cases, then expands into output details. It is information-dense and mostly avoids waste, though the long parenthetical listing of contact categories is somewhat run-on.

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 an 11-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the shape of the return (ordered contact types, searches, employers, named people) and a key privacy behavior. It does not clarify alternatives to sibling tools, but otherwise provides enough to invoke and understand the tool.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters with examples. The description mentions "a CV or a few details and the role wanted" but adds no parameter-level syntax, formatting, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the 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 states a specific planning output: an ordered list of kinds of people to contact, with ready searches, top employers, and named people from public posts. It is clear what the tool produces and for which role/CV context. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as find_people, connection_score, or referral_note.

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 usage contexts via example queries ("who should I network with?", "how do I get a job as a data scientist without applying cold?") and specifies inputs as a CV or a few details plus the goal role. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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