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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the 10-credit cost and by stating that it 'resolves name + domain for you,' which sets expectations for enrichment behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core function and input, the second discloses the cost. The main behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent lookup with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers all invocation-critical details: input form, resolution behavior, and cost. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the parameter description 'A professional profile URL or its bare public handle' fully defines the accepted input forms. The main description repeats this without adding new syntactic or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 verb and resource: 'Identify a person and their current company from a professional profile URL (or handle), then find their work email.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like email_find (likely input is email) and email_verify (verify existing email) by specifying the input is a profile URL or handle. The title 'Find email from LinkedIn profile' reinforces the purpose.

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 intended usage is explicit: provide a professional profile URL or bare handle, and the tool resolves name + domain then finds work email. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative routing, but the input condition is so clearly stated that an agent can infer when this is the appropriate tool among siblings.

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