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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no credit cost, and that email/phone appear only 'when enrichment has found them' — i.e. output fields are conditional. Missing pagination or truncation behavior beyond the schema'd limit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, second sentence carrying the cost signal. Nothing redundant.

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 zero-required-param list tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers scope, enrichment caveat and cost. No output schema exists, so the return shape is only lightly sketched (leads with optional email/phone) but adequate.

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%, with limit default/max and tracked_profile_id scoping fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List leads from tracked LinkedIn profiles') and clarifies the payload includes enrichment fields (email/phone). It is distinguishable from get_linkedin_profiles and set_linkedin_profile, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Does not spend credits' hints this is the cheap, safe way to see leads, but it never states when to pick this over get_linkedin_profiles or what happens if no profiles are tracked. No explicit exclusions or alternatives named.

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